Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Anderson

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 no consensus. So Why 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Anderson[edit]

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

Only ref provided is to what looks like a blog. Could not identify multiple instances of non-trivial discussion in reliable independent verifiable published sources. Google search only seems to have obituaries. KDS4444 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I haven't perused that particular source. From what I've seen, however, "blog posts" associated with Mike Mooneyham are typically reprints of journalistic pieces originally published by outlets which meet WP:RS. It begs the question of whether or not we're linking to a copyvio, but that's what you get for encouraging linkspam over solid information and sources. WP:RS is used time and again to categorically push certain websites, especially in the case of this topic area. Last I checked, I'm pretty sure we're also supposed to give weight to the author. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know what "give weight to the author" means...) KDS4444 (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article's only source is someone's blog and my own search didn't find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I was unimpressed by most of the listings mentioned, but I'm willing to change my comment to say the aforementioned article appeared in a reliable source. Appearing in a list of thousands of obituaries isn't a great source, but it's enough to move my vote to neutral. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I feel sad about this one because he was one of the most prominent WCW referees during the Monday Night Wars but I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. I agree with RadioKAOS that Mike Mooneyham is a reliable source (he writes regularly for the Post and Courier) but we'll need more than his one source to save this article. LM2000 (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did find his name in the books Nikki linked to below before chiming in before. Most are passing mentions in autobiographies of wrestlers who note that he refereed certain matches, but I just found this one, which is a bit more in depth and describes him as the leading WCW referee. I'm also keeping in mind RadioKAOS' comments about availability for web sources on this subject, whose career ended many years ago. I made similar comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa McMahon but wasn't swayed to keep there because her work was far from substantial.LM2000 (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [1] He's got a bunch of mentions in wrestling books. Anyone have the time to see if they amount to "significant coverage" or just a bunch of trivial mentions? Nikki♥311 00:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real life intruded, sorry for the late reply. In response to KDS4444 and expanding on LM2000's comments, it appears that NewsLibrary no longer offers URLs pointing to specific articles, but perhaps others are better versed in the ways of that site than I am. Regardless, it shows that this so-called "blog posting" is the same article that was originally published on January 26, 1997, not on "someone's blog", but in The Post and Courier, whose web masthead prominently displays the legend "Winner of the Pulitzer Prize". Evidently, that isn't stopping the Kool-Aid drinkers from drumming the "unreliable source" mantra, despite how obvious it is to anyone. The Post and Courier's web content only goes back to 2007, plus Mooneyham isn't the only credentialed journalist who uses Wordpress to republish journalistic pieces. WP:V is considered a core policy which mentions the need to consider the credibility of the writer as a factor in identifying something as a reliable source. Also see recent discussion at WT:RSN which cautions against categorically declaring items reliable or unreliable without considering the actual source. In other words, it isn't a black-and-white matter of which website you found the thing at, a rather pernicious POV that's creeped into a lot of AFDs lately. As for multiple sources, we're talking about someone whose career ended before Wikipedia began and who died before WP:PW began. Therefore, extraordinary measures should have been taken, just like any other topic which isn't going to be mentioned on the web today within the past X number of years. Our coverage of pro wrestling topics suffers in that specific regard. If you doubt me, take a look at how many American wrestlers have articles on ja.wiki but don't have articles here. A great many of them were among the biggest wrestling stars in the United States at one point during their careers, but since we're talking about stars of the 1960s and 1970s, the cherry-picked "reliable" websites are going to give them short shrift compared to all the pissing and moaning about Roman Reigns or JBL and whatever controversies they're known for over the past year or two. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this is a close one for me, not knowing anything about wrestling. I did some hunting, and added a source (albeit a questionable one that appears to be a clickbait site), but I'm not seeing anything that suggests he rises to the level of notability to be included here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While lowly, i think he passes. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As RadioKAOS notes, the article suffers from focusing on a subject who died before the internet boom, but he was prominent in storylines at the height of WCW's popularity (which was part of a "boom period" in wrestling). I added some references for some of the Randy Anderson-nWo feud, which further helps establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2017 (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.