Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultramantis Black

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus result = Delete. --VS ^talk 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramantis Black

This seems to be a fictional profile, written is the style of a fiction character rather than a pro-wrestler, and the only link is to his myspace page, and that seems to mainly be selling his shirts. Even his weight is kayfabe. Darrenhusted 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although, as a "pro wrestler," he is a fictional character, he fails WP:BIO. Also, contains both PR and commercial WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixing the page is simple enough - delete the second paragraph. Otherwise, UltraMantis is plenty notable as a star and commentator with CHIKARA Pro. --DanZero 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC) While not a SPA DanZero has made few contribution outside of voting in AfDs[reply]
Comment, Dan you need more references than a myspace page. Darrenhusted 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, true enough, if I can't find any primary/secondary sources then I'd support the deletion.--DanZero 15:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable indy wrestler un-deserving of an article (as of right now anyway). Nikki311 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not sufficiently notable as it stands, without the requisite sources. Adrian M. H. 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable indy commentator for Chikara. Kris 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, are any of these links sufficient to verify notability: [1][2][3] ? This looks useful as well, but that webpage looks terrible; is Pro Wrestling Torch a respectable source? John Vandenberg 11:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer, the first link is just an indy fed homepage, the second is not a link for UM Black but for Hallowicked, the third page is just a list of results, and the fourth is a video review. None establish notability, they are just trivial, passing references. And is still doesn't change that the only link is myspace, and even that seems to just be there to flog merch. The CHIKARA link doesn't establish anything other than he is a member of CHIKARA, notability is not inherited. Darrenhusted 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"March 19, 2005--Chikara Pro Wrestling: Hallowickid & Ultramantis Black ..." is pretty clear that UM Black was part of that promotion. UM Black was a wrestler in the video that is reviewed; again, is Pro Wrestling Torch a respectable source? I am surprised to hear you say that notability is not inherited, as other Afd's have been based on the premise that the wrestlers are not notable because they have only been in less notable promotions. I agree that a single appearance in a high profile promotion wouldnt be enough for a bio, but the links I have provided indicate that UM Black has a long history with this promotion. John Vandenberg 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for substantial non trivial coverage, not passing mentions in wrestling results. All the links above just reveal that UM Black is actually less notable than before, not more. Darrenhusted 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy not only appears at live shows but is featured in hundreds of DVD's that are sold around the world. --EdWood 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You could copy and paste that in to most of the Porn Star AfDs and it would still not save them. I suggest you improve this article then if you have such extensive knowledge of the subject. Darrenhusted 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.