Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Ray

Shawn Ray was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke  09:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable body-builder. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: a body builder might love the mirror. This one has become a "carrer."  Vanity. Geogre 19:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg 22:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Question: what would be required of a body-builder to be considered notable? //up+land 23:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * My opinion would be some kind of national recognition, or heavy media exposure failing that. Chris 02:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep if bodybuilders are encyclopedic. Turns out he is pretty notable in his field (the article now reflects this)--#45 in the world, and was probably higher in mid career, when he was getting more first place finishes, instead of just top five (he's about to turn 40, and I have to assume bodybuilders do better when 25-35). He's not the Muhammad Ali of bodybuilding (Jack LaLanne), nor even the Joe Frazier (Ahnold?), but he does seem to be somewhere between George Foreman (mostly for a long career in a young man's game) and, say, Gerry Cooney. Niteowlneils 02:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. 2000+ hits for ("shawn ray" + bodybuilder). He obviously means something to someone. jericho4.0 02:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Assuming what's there now is true, it seems notable. Tuf-Kat 02:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, Seems to be fairly notable on the basis of the article and the google test. Posiduck 04:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, since body builders are encyclopedic. In fact, he was actually in the New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding.  The list of matches won makes it clear that this is a notable topic. Factitious 04:24, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I'm a bit concerned that people are still using Google as a metric for notability, especially for a non-computer related article. *sigh* -- Radman1 06:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable bodybuilder. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, people are notable. Sam [Spade] 19:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ta bu shi da yu has been puting up may article for deletion.  This is not bad in and of itself but it is my observation that many of them are turning out to be voted legitiment.  It is a huge waste of time to have legit articles up for deletion.  I suggest a new policy that someone be suspended from putting up article for deletion for peroid of time if their submission defeat rate is above 1 in 5. --ShaunMacPherson 20:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thats an extremely good idea, VFD is out of control. Sam [Spade] 21:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * K in this case. Unfortunately, we're not to know whether every single one of the articles posted here is legit or not, nad neither are those nominating them.  I've seen plenty of VfD debates which looked certain after the first day (A fair selection of Delete votes), only for someone to point out something we all missed, and add it to the article, and suddenly a slew of Keep votes turn up.  As always, in the absence of blatant evidence of revenge, assume good faith on the part of the person nominating.  You can't necessarily tell from the outset whether someone has a grudge, or whether they're just unlucky in their selections.  Having 1 in 5 nominations defeated is not a high enough rate to automatically label someone as nominating in bad faith.  You also can't decide to class as legit his school nominations unless the consensus was that the place was notable and should be kept (NPOV, remember).  Chris 03:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * ShaunMacPherson (and Sam_Spade), as someone in the Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians, I don't think your particular criticism of Ta Bu Shi Da Yu is really appropriate. As for the proposed suspend rule, would you then agree that we should suspend people who vote to keep over 90% of the articles on VfD, to balance things out? :) --Improv 19:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if people would stop proposing to sanction users based upon some arbitrary statistic regarding their votes or other actions. Wikipedia isn't some game where you have to maintain a certain score. --Slowking Man 06:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this is one that actually is notable, at least in the fitness community. Only bodybuilder in history that has competed in 12 Mr. Olympia contests /has never placed lower than 5th place well-known bodybuilding contests. In a recent survey of the Top Bodybuilders of the Twentieth Century he finished in the top 3.  Don't agree that vfd is out of control,(mentioned above) am unwilling to penalise editors for good-faith efforts to trim the wiki fat.  Often articles are expanded to 'good articles' during the voting process, this not the fault of an editor who thought the original substub was in need of deleting.  Lets not become warring factions, let's spend more time on collaborations. Pedant 18:33, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
 * Keep. As boring as bodybuilding is, it appears that this guy has achieved notability in the field. *yawn* --Improv 19:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notability is established, therefore the article has more than enough potential to become encyclopedic. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  04:17, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough. --Slowking Man 06:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If body builders ran Wikipedia they'd probably list all the sci-fi crap as not being notable. Joe D (t) 23:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.