Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Schults


 * 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. The article changes so much since Doc glasgow and JzG gave their opinions (link), notably resulting in the nominator changing 'sides', and as such these two factors mean there is no way to determine a consensus from this debate.  Daniel  11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

David Schults
nn semi-pro wrestler, only about 400 google hits, obvious WP:COATRACK as it talks about the incident he had, and not about him. Delete This is a Secret account 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep after improvements This is a Secret account 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless notability established, and good sources evident. Nearly all the googles are to internet interest (myspace etc) in this one incident. We don't write up newsreports and call them biographies. There don't seem sources for a sensible biography. -Docg 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete d Guy (Help!) 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.


 * Keep He retired as a wrestler prior to the WWW, so lack of Ghits isn't terribly significant. The John Stossel bitchslap and resulting lawsuit had major coverage in the US. Article could be improved admittedly, but nomination is based on recentism not lack of notability. Horrorshowj 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, people use the word recentism to describe the problem of articles being written about news stories with short-lived attention, which will not be of interest in 10 years. That is how the Stossel incident appears to me. So you must mean something else by recentism - what? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean by it is giving undue weight to recent events and people, and conversely an inability to evaluate anything older than about ten years accurately, because you can only view it in the context of current events. I view this Afd as fitting for two reasons. First, the mention of Ghits as lack of notability. While most current pro-wrestlers generate a lot applying the same notion to someone who retired in the mid to late 1980s is ridiculous, as that's pre WWW in an industry that goes out of its way to dissuade long memories. Second, he characterized the subject as a semi-pro wrestler, apparently due to his being in regional promotions. This ignores the fact that prior to about the same time his career ended there were no national promotions in North America. Schults was in every one of the major promotions for 15-20 years which is a pretty good track record and definitely not deserving of a semi-pro description. Horrorshowj 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The nomination is mainly based as a WP:COATRACK article This is a Secret account —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an essay not a policy or guideline. It also primarily refers to articles that are pushing a biased interpretation. What about the article is pushing a bias? Horrorshowj 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw keep it....it's an interesting tidbit. Not every article should be a feature length production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.155.197 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I say keep. Looks to me like notability is asserted, and it's well sourced. Tromboneguy0186 22:16, 8 November 2007 (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.