Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Chastain


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edward Chastain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article doesn't meet the guidelines of professional wrestling related biographies. It lacks several points such as references, a career section, an "in wrestling" section, and the championships need more information such as how many times he won the title and who with for Tag Team Championships. Plus he is not notable enough to warrant an article at this time. WP:N  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - After expansion, this article now meets WP:ATHLETE, as he has competed at the top of his profession (he was a regular wrestler for TNA Wrestling) and has been covered in multiple reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I still don't see how he is notable. The career section is lacking and doesn't assert notability.  It doesn't talk about his training or anything like that.  It just says he worked for TNA, then was in a match in which lost thus forcing to retire, and finally wrestled one last match under his real name with the fans chanting "you're a legend" after he won.  It doesn't mention about any of the promotions he was a big part of.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing in the article or the sources prove that he actually competed for TNA, just that he was there for one week and attacked Sandman, in 2003 TNA were throwing a lot of stuff at the wall to see what stuck, I am not even sure he actually wrestled a match for them. Even if he wrestled just one match that's hardly enough or we'd have articles on every jobber that appeared on WWF Challenge through out the 1980s and 90s. Article does not assert notability IMO.  MPJ  -DK 07:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- The first SLAM! Wrestling reference states that he defeated Norman Smiley in TNA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If that is the case, it's pretty sad that it can't even be incorporated into the article. That is saying something.  Plus one match and feud in TNA doesn't assert notability.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting WP:ATHLETE per GaryColemanFan. It is probably also worth pointing out that we don't delete articles because they are incomplete or badly written or missing certain section headers. We also don't discount indicators of notability just because they are not (yet) in the article. Nancy  talk  17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There have been many an article that have been deleted based on notability not being in the article. The article still doesn't assert notability.  Plus this article has been around since May 5th, 2009 and nobody bothered to say anything about it.  For going on a year, it was just a list of titles he won.  It can't believe it was left in that horrible state.  Most articles about someone not notable would have been put up for deletion and deleted by now.  Why make an exception for this one?  Doesn't make sense to me.  Even people like Colin Olsen aka Colin Delany in WWE/ECW was put up for deletion and he is more notable then this guy.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, he barely seems to pass WP:ATHLETE for his feud with The Sandman in TNA (which included two ppv matches), but that combined with his other titles and mentions in numerous reliable sources are enough to keep the article around. As for articles being deleted because notability isn't listed in the article...I think you misunderstand. Articles are deleted because the subject isn't notable, no matter if the article is great or poor. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles can be improved. However, when there are no sources available (which is different that them being present in the article), then it is deleted as non-notable. Nikki  ♥  311   03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That is totally untrue. I have come across many articles that are not sourced and still around.  Some of the Japanese wrestler articles are not sourced and are still around.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you either strike or refactor the first sentence of your "comment" forthwith. Even if you were right which you were not, calling other editors bold faced liars is unacceptable. Nancy  talk  15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nancy  talk  15:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. Nikki  ♥  311   03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mr. CC, I'm not seeing your logic. You argue that the poor state of an article is reason to delete, because other poorly written articles haven't been deleted? &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 16:46, 26 March 2010 (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.