Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Elson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. ffm 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warren Elson[edit]
- Warren Elson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article presents no real evidence of the subject's notability. Grahame (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from neutral party. Whilst a search of this subject does bring up notability, the article itself is a terribly written stub that sheds absolutely no light on the subject. ~ NossB (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article may be badly written, but Wikipedia guidelines do not present that as a reason that can be used to delete an article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In a bad way and no sources to establish notability from, a quick g-search, shows he seems to have been the WMC World Muay Thai champion, but i'm not sure of the notaility of the title without further checks. --Nate1481 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep seems to be notable per Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Athletes (professional athlete) [1], [2], [3], [4] though the article is in bad shape. JJL (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Ghits suggest that Elson does meet WP:ATHLETE (barely). The article is poor, as has been stated before, but that is a fact that does not mean the article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (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.