Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury (2nd nomination)

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stilsbury[edit]

I closed a prior AfD on this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury, as delete. However it was brought to my attention that work was done on the article towards the tail-end of its AfD period. Starting another AfD on this article to re-assess its notability status as of that point in time. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is fully sourced and contains several reliable, third-party sources, including three book references. The arguments brought up in the previous AfD did not support deletion. A quick run-down is as follows:

"He was only in the WWF for a brief time" - In reality, he was there for a year and a half.
"He didn't do anything noteworthy" - In reality, he had feuds with Frenchy Martin and Killer Khan televised on the company's major television programs; he also defeated several big-name wrestlers, including Nikolai Volkoff and former WWF Champion Iron Sheik.
"He should be subject to WP:CREATIVE" - I don't believe that wrestlers fit this definition, as they are not similar to scientists, engineers, or visual artists. WP:ATHLETE fits, as professional wrestling is an athletic performance, albeit a scripted one. This establishes his notability, as he performed for the world's biggest wrestling promotion (as a character that was featured regularly, although it was often as a "jobber to the stars", similar to Lanny Poffo). The alternative would be to use a combination of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, as professional wrestlers are also television personalities. In this case, he would be considered notable because he has a cult following. THis can be seen by his induction on the WrestleCrap website and his inclusion in several books. It is further demonstrated because he is included in a line of action figures by LJN Wrestling Superstars.
"WP:ATHLETE is being interpreted too broadly" - I agree that wrestling one match for a major company should not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I stated before, however, he wrestled for them in a featured role for a year and a half. A good comparison would be Adam Bomb's tenure with the WWF: he was pushed at the beginning and had victories over big-name stars, but he later moved into a jobber to the stars role and ultimately developed a cult following. I can't imagine anyone claiming that Adam Bomb's tenure in the WWF is not notable.
"He was an embarassment to wrestling/WrestleCrap inductees suck/He was a laughing stock" - The quality of his gimmick or wrestling style is not appropriate to include in an AfD discussion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.

In conclusion, this is a well-sourced article about a notable character in the world's biggest wrestling promotion. There is simply no precedent for deletion the article of a long-term WWF character (and yes, a year and a half is a decent tenure with a company like the WWF). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not notable. See my statement on my user page for some of the reasons. I won't touch the article for now because of the present dispute between myself and Gary. Additionally - Adam Bomb got a gig at Wrestlemania 10 - which invalidates the comparison. Compare to Mario Mancini, Don Driggers, Tiger Chung Lee (probably the best example) and Brian Costello - none of whom have articles and in the case of Mancini jobbed for even longer than 18 months. I think it was two to three years at least. Oh and there is a peacock language issue with the reference to his theme music (referring to it as "famous"). !! Justa Punk !! 07:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree about the peacock language. It was there before I started editing the article, and I removed it in response to your comment. I'm not convinced that the wrestlers you mentioned are good parallels - certainly, the WWF never gave any of them a victory over such high-profile names. The win over the Iron Sheik was also four months before the Sheik's arrest, so your speculation regarding the reason for the win is incorrect. At any rate, I just wanted to mention that the information for reference #2 actually comes from the picture of the card on the linked page, so that text is not credited back to Wikipedia, although the rest of the page (which is not used as a source) certainly is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chung Lee did which is why I said he was the best example. He got something that Stilsbury didn't get - a non title match against a reigning champion on television (IC champion Ricky Steamboat just after Wrestlemania 3 on Superstars). I know I saw Stilsbury against Honky Tonk amongst those other results but they were house shows. As far as reference 2 goes, I think that needs a third party source given the WWF were trying to put him over with that which places it's reliability in accuracy under a cloud. !! Justa Punk !! 07:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not exactly the most important person in the world, but there is coverage in multiple reliable sources there. While I wouldn't personally lose any sleep if this were deleted, I do think the GNG should prevail. Keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. References only prove he was there. No references to prove he worked for Stampede or in Australia and WWF debut was in 1987 (ring results referenced show nothing for him in 1986). Two matches do not make a notable feud or even a feud (re Frenchy Martin). No one knew about Killer Khan until the face misting on TV and Jack was gone not long after that. Limited TV exposure and the two noted "big wins" were on house shows. Therefore fails WP:N. Get Dumb 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "November 2, 1986: Butch Reed defeated Outback Jack". At that time, many feuds were only featured on a couple of television episodes--they also had a series of matches on house shows, however. The article also doesn't give full results of his television exposure. I limited it to a couple of feuds, but more could certainly be added if you'd like. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources have established notability.--WillC 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first AfD caused me to ask about notability standards at the Professional Wrestling project here: [1]. Even among devotees of wrestling, the question is not clear about whether they should be looked at under WP:ATHLETE or not. Theirs is an athletic performance, but not a competition, since the outcome is pre-determined. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed. 18 months is still brief for a tenure in an elite level. Agree with Niteshift about WP:ATHLETE and wrestling could be interpreted as visual artistry so WP:CREATIVE shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Also agree with GetDumb re the TV exposure and what he did outside of the fed. TaintedZebra (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Applying WP:CREATIVE would show a thorough (and perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of visual artistry. Wrestlers are a combination of athletes and actors, so WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER are the only applicable notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was my mistake for saying creative.......WP:ENT is the next paragraph. I just used the wrong short-cut. I don't misunderstand the industry at all. Just take a deep breath and WP:AGF once in a while. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the special cases. The GNG always applies, and it's sufficient to decide this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, Marshall. The GNG is a guide only and can not be applied as one size fits all. In this case I firmly believe it fails. I note the last reference from GaryColemanFan to the "shoot" and I would consider that unverified speculation by the wrestler concerned. TaintedZebra (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while debating if he's "WP:Athlete", "WP:Entertainer" or "WP:Smurf" people forget that there is a general "WP:Notability" and "WP:Verifiability" that trumps it all. The article fulfills both with the reliable sources being cited now. He doesn't have to fulfill any other requirements than these two, the other requirements are ONLY if he did not straight up fulfill WP:N & WP:V. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and WP:V, regardless of the never-ending debate over ATHLETE and ENT. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Darrenhusted User:BioDetective2508 17:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meets WP:V and WP:N.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE! What is going on here? Since when does being a glorified jobber for 18 months make someone notable? I'll bet the wins over Volkoff and Sheik were the result of a DQ. That's happened before and the beneficiaries don't have articles! How about Brad Perry? He beat Dino Bravo on TV but he doesn't have an article. What about the guy who beat Jake Roberts by DQ when he hit his eye (during the Martel feud) and Roberts went nuts? This guy is not notable! It doesn't matter how much you prove he was there; He was a JOKE! And that's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a failing of WP:N. And he's not an athlete either. He's a full scale entertainer, and a bad one at that. Mal Case (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this above vote should be ignored from the offical decision. This vote is clearly a bias one and does not follow a netural point of view.--WillC 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NPOV only applies in article space, and doesn't apply in deletion discussions. Indeed, the whole point of deletion discussions is to extract the point of view of individual editors. However, I agree that the editor has not based his point in policy and I am sure the closing admin will give it the appropriate weight.
    - I understand that it only applies to articles but I was using the term a bit more widely. The above user's vote was not netural in the aspect that he/she was voting plaining on notability of reliablie sources. Was instead voting on his/her own personnel opinion of the wrestler.--WillC 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point IS based in policy!! WP:N! It FAILS! Don't accuse me of something I'm not guilty of! Think about this; How many jokes have articles? Come on, be serious and look at this from purely a notability angle and not anything else (like WP:ATHLETE and so on). Mal Case (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the GNG, regardless of arguments about his "talent". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been forced by the most recent reference to remove my delete vote. I still don't think he's notable, but as I can't counter the weight of evidence with anything other than speculation so I am no longer in a position to hold a delete vote. However I can not in good conscience vote for "Keep" either. I'm now abstaining. I do have a question though. What's GNG? !! Justa Punk !! 06:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the General Notability Guideline. You can read it here: WP:GNG.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I've never followed pro wrestling at all, so my vote is based solely on the sourcing - it's clear that this personality has received significant enough media coverage to be notable by Wikipedia standards. matt91486 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- I'd say a Weak keep, although he's obviously a Jobber, I'd says he's at least notable if WWE is willing to make an action figure on him. Afro Gold - Afkatk 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.