Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Dennis


 * 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. Sources have been presented. The discussants are unable to agree on whether the sources are reliable or not, and it doesn't appear additional discussion will result in a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Eddie Dennis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  13:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * - Did you take a look at any of the sources given? National newspapers have gone into serious depth regarding the wrestler, specifically the mirror, daily star, Wales Online, Metro, and The Sun.


 * If that isn't a suitible level of coverage, I'm not sure what is.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did review them. Firstly The Sun is listed as not reliable on WP:PW/RS. Second, the other 4 only are to talk about the same thing, a teacher becoming wrestler. 3 out of the 4 deal are from the exact same period of time. To me makes the sourcing WP:1E. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, those sources do talk about him leaving being a teacher, but those are simply retrospect, and are in-depth from notable reliable independent sources. How about this interview with fightful? There's also sources regarding his coverage of his feud with Mark Andrews as well as mentions everywhere like vulture hound, Last word on pro wrestling.


 * It should also be mentioned, that BBC Wales actually did a program on him.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Keep as article creator. See above for rationale.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural? What process was not followed? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, better word chosen. I was simply noting that I was the creator of the article, and thus why I was voting keep.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This does brush pretty close to WP:1E, but the amount of coverage shown does seem like enough to justify an article. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 07:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless you can find reliable sources for significant coverage, this doesn’t cut it.Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Lee Vielenski DrewieStewie (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2018 (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.