Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Keith Lipinski

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Keith Lipinski[edit]

I believed I have unearthed mother of all vanity pages. Subject is a minor internet commentator on pro-wrestling, his "radio show" is more like a podcast (albeit a somewhat popular one), and if he was somehow able to pass WP:BIO, I would bet that only one sentence would make it past cleanup, maybe three. Prod was removed by User:Dr Vader with the comment "Article improved as requested. Objection to potential deletion due to the cult popularity of the show, and the major contribution Keith offers to the Dave Meltzer Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Thanks". hateless 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I've heard of him, but he doesn't deserve an article. Possible vanity. Just because a wrestling figure has a "cult following" doesn't mean it is a big one, usually is more like 50 fans. Giant onehead 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete it as fast as you can. Not every internet personality is worth an article, clever as they might be. ♠P M C♠ 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opening paragraph is painfully vain and borderline nonsensical, and it doesn't get much better from there. Nuke it from orbit. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Danny. It's the only way to be sure. Bwithh 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WOW; He really took some time on that. Arbusto 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Danny Lilithborne and Bwithh. You can bill me. --Satori Son 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yeah, Delete Obvious vanity. Resolute 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity and disturbing pics.--Hús ö nd 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. --MaNeMeBasat 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete per above. MER-C 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He is known in wrestling circles, but only a small part of the page is salvageable Gretnagod 12:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that the Dr Keith show is either "vastly popular" or "highly regarded". JASpencer 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopeless vanity, grossly POV, and I for one cannot be arsed to clean it up to the one sentence whihc is probably all that can be sourced. Guy 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think we should waste any more words on this article. Em-jay-es 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a big bellyflop. --Charlesknight 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... he is certainly not a Mustache Pete - Alexbonaro 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. What a load of rubbish. Jeendan 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw nothing which verified notability, and the tone of the article is appallingly non-encyclopedic. --Elonka 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should be rewritten I agree, but it seems there's some amount of personal bias going into the nomination and all of the "vanity" attacks. In wrestling circles he's just as well known as the people he interviews, and a majority of them have Wikipedia pages (I won't list them all because then they'll be proposed for deletion too). BronzeWarrior 06:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, whether he's well-known by word-of-mouth, or whether there are verifiable print references from credible sources, which prove his notability. If there are, then by all means, please provide links. But simply saying that someone is well-known, is not sufficient. You may wish to review the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability for more info. --Elonka 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself lists his credentials - Pro Wrestling Torch, Figure Four Weekly, Puroresu Power Hour, and so forth. If print is the key aspect of this debate, it should be noted the F4W newsletter is printed and delivered to tens of thousands of subscribers all around the world every single week. I'm not saying Dr. Keith Lipinski is as famous as Dave Meltzer or Bryan Alvarez, but I am saying he's more than Joe Schmoe on the street and the caliber of guests on his radio show (top wrestlers from Japan to the US to Europe) speak volumes about how known he is. I still think much of the debate here is an attack on wrestling rather than a true judgment of his notability. BronzeWarrior 08:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be rewritten (and shortened) Igbogirl 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing says notability like having your article's photo taken by yourself via an outstretched arm.Vic sinclair 06:48, 28 September 2006 (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.