Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Saint Laurent (2nd nomination)

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. L Faraone 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saint Laurent[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at AFD but a subsequent G4 was challenged at DRV. The outcome was to list this for discussion at AFD. So here we are. As the DRV closer I have no opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the G4 deleting admin; what is the actual claim to notability here? There doesn't look to be one, so I would say delete. Giant Snowman 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've spent too much time looking into this. So, there aren't really any great notability guidelines to go on for professional wrestlers so far as I know. Here's what I have:

The notability guidelines for sports figures suggests using WP:ENTERTAINER for professional wrestlers. I don't think there is a great deal of support for the article on that basis. He doesn't have a cult status, he hasn't appeared on shows outside of wrestling programs, and he hasn't made any extraordinary contributions to the entertainment industry.
The subject's relations to the Canadian PM and his "associations" to other wrestlers don't amount to much.
The subject has apparently won a World Championship title, but the awarding organization is only loosely associated with the AWA. The AWA technically went out of business in 1990. At the time of his championship, the revived organization was using the AWA name (called AWA Superstars of Wrestling), though this was successfully challenged by the WWE in 2008 (the org was then called Wrestling Superstars Live). However, it is still a pro wrestling governing body, despite its falling out. The regional/state titles, IMO, are insufficient support for notability.
The subject appears to have some coverage for leaking an album by Guns N' Roses ([1] [2]).
News sources don't produce much in the way of reliable sources or content outside of routine coverage for Laurent.

I can't find a compelling reason to keep the article. He may have a world championship title, but it's unclear to me whether this confers notability in pro wrestling, and the coverage is on the light side. I'm open to revisiting my opinion if it is challenged. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guns and Roses coverage is actually quite problematic, the WP article currently claims a "feud" and "rivalry" something no source suggests (fixable by an edit I know). The first source you mention states "Why then, didn't the RIAA and Axl's lawyers come down on Mister Saint Laurent like a ton of bricks a few months earlier? Partly it was because he'd never actually uploaded the songs anywhere", so it appears he's not got coverage for leaking the album, there is some coverage repeating his own claims that he somehow got hold of material, which he didn't pass onto anyone else so unverified if that actually occurred. Similarly it merely repeats claims that people from Guns and Roses contacted him etc. completely unverified. The second source you mention links and shows a scan of the first source, so clearly based on that. On it's face there doesn't appear much reliability to any of that, it seems a bit of a house of cards built of sources repeating other sources rather than separate jounralism, and that source in itself doesn't appear to have actually verified or fact checked the claims of the subject. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems reliable sources have covered him. Some for his "Wrestling" career, some for his problems with Guns and Roses. But in any case, we've got multiple non-trivial sources at it meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually almost no coverage of his wrestling career, other than the "titles" and some routine coverage in news only detailing basic event information. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable either as a musician or a wrestler. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. His wrestling career is not notable, AWA Superstars of Wrestling is not not the same as the American Wrestling Association (which was a prominent wrestling organization). There doesn't appear to be much to his feud with Guns N Roses, so I don't that that tidbit of notability is going to be enough to salvage the article.LM2000 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I posted the previous statement before article was rewritten, I am retracting my delete vote. Some of the new sources may need to be sorted through if article survives AfD, to eliminate the "padding" and unreliable ones but there's enough to savage the article at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article is now far more detailed and better demonstrates the subject's notability. Earlier comments would not be able to take this into account. I ask those who have commented already to please look over the improved article as Mister Saint Laurent's notability is now more clearly explained. Larsonrick25 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded and improved since I saw it at DRV though a lot of the sources are still bloggy or repeating press releases or relate to people associated with MSL. Though the situation is still rather borderline for notability I can see sufficient reliable sources with enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG guidelines, in particular these.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Only the first few are significant but together they seem adequate. Thincat (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance of your new sources show they are about the relationship with Axl Rose - are you aware of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED? Giant Snowman 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. (They are not "my" sources – they were added by another editor). The article establishes he is a wrestler, a radio/TV presenter, and someone who did (or did not) try and sell some leaked album tracks. And (how could I forget it?) he's a loudmouth. Also, yes, as I commented above, a lot of information is about people associated with him but I have tried to home in on information about himself and what he has done himself. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 45 new sources, approximately 75% pertain to the subject's wrestling career with the remaining 25% pertaining to Axl Rose. Subject is the host of a well known and well publicized podcast, which was written up by Rolling Stone. Subject is regularly written about by numerous major wrestling news sites due to his involvement in several well known projects. His page has been a notorious target for trolling and it appears if he actually were unknown, this discussion would not be taking place. It seems his notoriety is the very reason some object to his page as most requests for deletion inevitably contain personal insults and name calling. One could easily find hundreds of far less notable wrestlers with undisturbed wiki entries. Larsonrick25 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better written at this point. However, I still think that MSL is a borderline case for notability because of WP:SIGCOV. The sources vary in reliability but either way he isn't the focus of the bulk of those sources, most basically include him as a trivial mention. ~~The Axl Rose coverage still seems to be his best bet for surviving deletion, but as GiantSnowman pointed out the current sources may not be adequate.~~LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject was only known for being related to a Prime Minister of Canada, I agree that alone would not be enough for notability. If the subject was only known for being the only person to manage to convince Sierra Leone to allow a one character domain, I agree that alone would not be enough for notability. If the subject was only known for being the protege and tag team partner of Larry Zbyszko, it would be a borderline call on whether that alone would be enough for notability. If the subject was only known for being a broadcaster for Ring of Honor wrestling, that alone actually may be enough for notability as they are the third largest wrestling organization in the United States and he hosts dozens of their home video releases. If subject was only known for being a world champion, that alone may not be enough for notability, although it certainly demonstrates a certain level of notoriety. If the subject was only known as the creator and a cast member of "Scott Hall TV," that alone may be enough for notability as the show was very popular and starred some of the most famous wrestlers in history. If subject was only known for working for the Wilpon family as a wrestling executive or working as a producer on the Frank Shamrock reality show, those things separately may not be enough for notability, although combined they demonstrate the subject is notable in his field. If subject was only known for hosting MLW Radio, that may be enough for notability as that is one of the most popular wrestling shows in the world and regularly features well known guests. If subject was only known for being "that pro wrestler Axl Rose hates," that alone may be borderline for notability, although a cover story in a major publication documenting their feud in depth shows the media was very interested in the quirkiness of the story.

When you take ALL of those things into account, it's very difficult to assert the subject is not notable. Is he the most notable person in the history of Wikipedia? No, of course not. But there is enough fan interest and media interest in him for it to make sense that Wikipedia would provide some information on him. When this discussion began, his page did not do a great job of providing information on him, but now the page does a good job of explaining who he is and what is notable about him. I think this process has improved the article immensely and notability, while not overwhelming, is definitely established.Larsonrick25 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are a lot of references there which seem to exist to pad out the reference section (such as this link which mentions a pro wrestling reality show, but not MSL. However, there are enough other proper references to demonstrate notability. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated, but only because the various aspects of his life are greater than the sum of all their parts. — Richard BB 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard BB. Not all sources are reliable, but enough reliable sources are present to discuss his various claims to notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references section here is too problematic for me to change my mind, even if there are a lot of sources now. I've tried to remove some of the poorer ones. I'm concerned that many sources are in a grey area (e.g. Metal Sludge seems to lean more sensationalist than reputable, the article from MetalSucks.net is an editorial, and other sources, like 411mania.com, have questionable reputability according to WikiProject Wrestling). Many sources provide only trivial mentions of the subject. The coverage on the TV show and podcast does not confer notability, particularly because many of these sources only post videos or mention Laurent. Some do not even mention the subject at all and instead focus on the TV show or the podcast itself rather than the subject. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (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.