Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Stilsbury

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced for two years now, and notability is questionable. Nothing more than one of many failed WWF experiments and did virtually nothing else. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the nomination. This guy was an embarassment to wrestling! Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:ATHLETE notability guideline: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport." The WWF is the top North American promotion, so his role there is sufficient to establish notability. A quick search shows several results in reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In pro wrestling I'm not sure WP:ATHLETE is appropriate, unless it's in combination with WP:CREATIVE - a part that he definitely fails. And if there are several results in reliable sources, why was this unsourced for two years?  !! Just a Punk !!  08:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep he is notable and I've added a reference to start off the article and will put this on my to-do list, to reference/possible re-write in the future. Afkatk (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Tend to agree with Fenric about the embarassment. Nom is correct also. Did nothing else. WWF tenure not notable. Did nothing. TaintedZebra (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think being a laughing stock is notable is it? There's nothing else to make him. Rick Doodle (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted that thinking his character was stupid is not a valid reason to delete the article. The "laughing stock" and "embarassment" comments do not comply with any Wikipedia guidelines regarding deletion discussions. WP:ATHLETE is cited frequently in wrestling deletion discussions. In this case, it supports his inclusion, which trumps people who just didn't enjoy his character. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree per what I said above. And I would add that the amount of time he was in the WWF actually goes against WP:ATHLETE and not for it. It's like saying someone who plays a few games of English Premier League soccer is notable for that reason alone. The same applies to AFL football. It needs more to pass that criteria. He never had a major feud or held a title.  !! Just a Punk !!  06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are wrong. As someone who is frequently involved in AFD discussions, ATHLETE si too broad in its scope. According to ATHLETE, playing in just 1 professional game makes a athlete notable. So if a MLB player has 1 at-bat in a regular season game and never plays again, they would still be notable according to ATHLETE. I think ATHLETE should be changed, and it should not be used for wrestling (or else you would have articles on all those local jobbers that appear for 1 match just to be be squashed by someone like Vladimir Kozlov).  TJ   Spyke   15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, TJ. Maybe a process should be started to fix that problem up. Of course what you say in effect (IMO) supports the deletion of this article.  !! Just a Punk !!  00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I lean this way because there are too many unsourced statements in the article and taking them all out would leave a stub that is so small it's hardly worth it. This needs sources and lots of them quick or I'm afraid it has to go.  Get  Dumb   09:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Curse as well. A joke, couldn't wrestle out of a shoe box and not even worth an article. Mal Case (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He simply wasn't notable. Good question about whether or not WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE should be the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at what is covered by each, WP:CREATIVE (scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers) would be ridiculous to use. Does anyone honestly think that wrestlers are better grouped with scientists and engineers than they are with athletes? WP:ENTERTAINER could be considered, but, live WP:ATHLETE, it would also support keeping this article. Per "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following," Stilsbury's Outback Jack character can definitely be said to have a cult following. Whether this is more due to his career or his inclusion on the WrestleCrap website and in multiple WrestleCrap books (reliable, third-party sources that establish his notability, regardless of which definition we are using), he definitely has a cult following. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete You're kidding me. This failure has an article here? Cult following my left foot. Wrestlecrap is a hall of shame, not fame. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This, like most other comments here, fails to cite a valid reason. As stated on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. The main valid concern (the lack of references from reliable, third-party sources) has now been addressed, so I would assume it's getting close to time to close this discussion and keep the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notability established in my mind.-- Will C  04:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability, although not by a huge margin. Orderinchaos 10:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Much information has been added and sourced since this nomination. Notability has been established several times over. Claims that his stay in the WWF were brief and that he did nothing notable have been debunked. At this point, I am requesting that the AfD be closed as a keep or restarted altogether, as the article bears little resemblance to the one that people have been commenting on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2009 (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.