Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Bill Verna

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. chaser (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Verna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, claiming sources but the article was not updated. This article can't be saved and has so many problems with it, it's close to a speedy except that I don't think there's a category for this as it isn't gibberish. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N badly. !! Justa Punk !! 08:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I did find one source that indicates that the article is legit. [1] --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One match against Lou Thesz doesn't prove notability. And how reliable is the site linked? Much information from 1960s would be hard to verify to be brutally honest. !! Justa Punk !! 03:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is your suggestion? Should everything pre-1970 be deleted? Or should we apply common sense and acknowledge that there won't be as many sources for older wrestlers as there are for current wrestlers, but that they are notable nonetheless? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show what titles he won for a start. That can be sourced if he did and the title was notable. If he didn't win any titles, back in those days that's automatically non notable such was the state of the business then. !! Justa Punk !! 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that no titles indicates no notability. For example, Steve Lombardi has never won a title in the WWF, but I certainly wouldn't call his tenure there non notable. In any event, Bill Verna won two internationally recognized titles, and the article contains this information along with sources. Can I assume, then, that you are willing to request that this discussion be closed now as a "keep", or do you intend to continue moving the goalposts on a daily basis? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never moved the goal posts. Lombardi is notable because he was involved in Wrestlemania 5 as the Brooklyn Brawler, and he played several roles over a long period of time. I'd call Kimchee notable by itself. The editor below has destroyed your assertion that the two titles this guy won were "internationally recognized", so as they aren't notable - neither is he. My opinion has not changed. !! Justa Punk !! 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Articles has been expanded and sourced since this nomination. A long career, spanning many countries and at least 20 years, that included title victories and wrestling main event matches, and has been discussed in several newspapers in addition to websites, that has been noted by a well-known wrestler as influential in shaping British wrestling, is easily notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It needs more than sources. It needs proof of notability and lots of. I'm finding myself agreeing with the nom. It can't be saved. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I sense that the subject might well be notable but the references are poorly chosen and do little to highlight his importance and I could find very little myself on him--AssegaiAli (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, he wrestled main event matches in a couple of different countries. I would like some background on the titles he won, though. How important were they at the time? Nikki♥311 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know where GaryColemanFan gets the idea that the two titles noted are in any way internationally recognised. I found nothing in Google that was relevent for the All European Championship. For the British/Commonwealth title, all bar two title holders don't have articles here, and one of them that does is a stub (Douglas Clark (rugby league) and he is more known for rugby than wrestling). It is also stated in the Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom article here that; the addition of European, Empire/Commonwealth, Scottish, Welsh, and area championships got out of hand, and at one point there were conceivably 70 different titleholders to keep track of within Joint Promotions alone. I bolded the relevant part myself. The reference by Adrian Street list this person as one of literally dozens of people. So this fails WP:N in my opinion. TaintedZebra (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So Wikipedia is a reliable source all of a sudden? 72.74.223.180 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting the commentary Zebra drew is unverified? If you are then maybe you should go over and challenge it. !! Justa Punk !! 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well a quick internet search shows that several British Empire/Commonwealth title holders were notable despite not currently having their own articles on Wikipedia. Aside from Douglas Clark (rugby league) and George Gordienko, Billy Meeske ([2]), Ray Hunter ([3]), Albert Wall ([4]) and Count Bartelli ([5]) were all very well-known names in British professional wrestling. Geoff Portz held quite a few titles in his career while Alan Garfield held the NWA International Television Tag Team Championship, both men being among the few British wrestlers to find success in the United States in the 1960s and 70s. 72.74.197.101 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of multiple non-trivial citations from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JBsupreme. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2009 (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.