Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck E. Chaos


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:11Z 

Chuck E. Chaos

 * — (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion by 67.86.149.41. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated it for deletion and because I'm anonymous, it would not let me put a reason for deletion.67.86.149.41 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because no reason for deletion was specified. Normy  132  02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there's no reason given, I think the reason is kind of foregone.  The subject fails WP:BIO at this point.  A cleanup or more assertion of notability would change my mind.  --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oops... That's me. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry.67.86.149.41 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per non-notability. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Here's a novel concept: Research. I did a google search and turned up: 1) Wikipedia and mirrors 2) his own Myspace page and 3) announcements of his appearance.  2 cannot be used to establish notability, failing the "independant" test; and 3 cannot be used to establish notability, as it fails the "nontrivial" test.  No other references can be found that establish notability yet.  If anyone finds some, I could change my vote.  Unless and until that happens, I vote delete. --Jayron 32  04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with Jayron's findings. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Ter e nce Ong 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Concur with Normy - no reason for deletion specified. Wrestler is notable - first Australian indy wrestler to appear on a pay per view event (WWA Eruption). Will source within a week. 203.17.215.99 06:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That fact about him being the first Aussie indy wrestler to appear on PPV doesn't really have much merit in terms of notablity behind it. As much as I want to keep this article around (because he's a well known Aussie wrestler) that fact is fairly pointless and I'd doubt whether it's true or not. Normy  132  06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources... if either appear, it can always be recreated. Robertissimo 09:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. -Advanced 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Davnel03 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Jayron32 and Robertissimo. delldot | talk 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete still fails WP:BIO; and if he's so notable Down Under, I'd expect to see many more ghits!! SkierRMH 22:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He doesnt even have a my space and secondly hes listed on every international indy profile out there. Do a search with minus cheese, youll get more results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.128.90 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2006
 * Delete not notable. -- Aaru Bui  DII 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One of only three Australian wrestlers to appear on pay per view (Nathan Jones and Mark Mercedes being the other two) and definitely notable. WP:IAR also applies in this case due to the limited size of the Australian database. Locally VERY notable. Curse of Fenric 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Additional - nomination made by a banned sockpuppet known for attacking non American wrestling entries. Curse of Fenric 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd be all for a speedy keep on account of this alone. Do any admins concur with this? --Dennisthe2 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The word "notable", at Wikipedia, means nothing more nor less than "there exist sufficient reliable sources to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about this topic." His being the first to do this or that might make him significant, in some sense, but that doesn't help us unless it's published somewhere.  The only correct way to argue "notability" is to cite sources.  This idea that, because we don't have much on Australian wrestling, we can apply IAR and ignore Verifiability.... I don't think you'll find there's consensus for this idea, but rather that it flies in the face of Wikipedia's basic mission, which is to provide verifiable information on every topic for which that is possible.  Our No original research policy is non-negotiable. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bacchus, may I suggest you look again at the article? And where is the original research? I never made any such argument after I discovered WP:IAR - which BTW supports WP's basic mission. I am seeking flexibility on notability and verifiability due to local conditions. Not an open slather on original research! Curse of Fenric 08:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I neither voted delete nor made any claim about this article, did I? I simply suggested that ivoking WP:IAR to bypass WP:NOR or WP:V - even in special cases - is a bad argument, without consensus support.  I haven't looked at this article; I'm just saying that IF it should be kept, it'll be because of sources, and not for any other reason.  You said, "WP:IAR also applies in this case due to the limited size of the Australian database."  That is not a good argument, and I suggest you'll have more success arguing from sources than claiming that anything justifies going without them.  If "flexibility on verifiability" means anything other than going without sources, you've yet to make that clear. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bacchus if you'll just look at the article and see what I've done with the notes, you'll have a better idea of what I'm talking about with "flexibility of verifiability". The original line as I understood it was that sources had to be online. My point is - and always was - in Australia that's not always possible. Hence, if anyone tries to say "if it's not online it fails verifiability", that's when I'll apply WP:IAR. I hope that makes things clearer for you. Curse of Fenric 00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you got the impression that sources have to be online to count towards verifiability. Where did you hear that?  It doesn't say it in WP:V, and I don't believe I've heard it claimed.  We just want information that's been published by independent sources; they don't have to have a website. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent)It was one of Booyaka's key argument points, and the lack of objection at the time led me to believe it to be the case. OK, Booyaka's completely unreliable when it comes to policy (which is why I wish I'd known about WP:IAR at the time) but the lack of reaction to his hard and fast view re proof was not helpful. &#91;&#91;User:Curse of Fenric/sig]] 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly how you're finding IAR relevant here. There's no rule that says print sources are bad, so I'm not sure what you're wanting to ignore.  The best way to know what WP:V and WP:NOR say is not to take Booyaka's word for it, or mine, but to read them.  Anyway, I'm glad we seem to be coming to an understanding, and I'm sorry it took so long to work out why we were disagreeing.  I didn't see Booyaka saying sources needed to be online, or I would have said something sooner. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always said WP:V and WP:NOR are too vague and are open to interpretation. That's why Booyaka's translation AND the lack of reaction to it upset me. Hence the fact that I would have applied WP:IAR at the time if I'd known about it. Because he was applying those two in a certain way (which you've said is not correct but that's beside the point I'm making) and it was stopping me from protecting what I felt was perfectly good info. To apply a standard like "online only" made it impossible to maintain Wikipedia's standards - hence the WP:IAR policy. Hope that makes it's relevance clearer. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Update
The article has been updated with sources. Curse of Fenric 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails BIO FirefoxMan 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How? Curse of Fenric 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Bad faith AFD by sockpuppet. DXRAW 12:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per keep arguments. Thedreamdied 22:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As of right now I would vote delete, as the article seems to have no relevant contribution to professional wrestling. At best, I consider this article a stub with little to validate.  Since Curse of Fenric seems to believe there is something there to establish notability, I will withhold making a delete or keep vote until he/she can provide further proof of its notability to Australia and Australian wrestling. D2001dstanley 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're telling me what's there isn't enough? I'm sorry, but what more do you want? I believe I have more than proved notability with what I have updated the article with. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 04:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.