Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. After discarding the duplicate "keep", consensus is that this person does not pass the notability guidelines. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Angela Fong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This BLP seems to be about someone who doesn't pass our notability guidelines. It contains four references, three of which are unreliable. iMatthew talk at 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Top stage by appearing in WWE. Won a title in FCW. OWOW is marginally reliable. Two primary sites, and one I'm not sure of. Needs work, but she is notable enough IMO.--WillC 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, just appearing in WWE doesn't mean anything to prove notability. FCW isn't even the "top level" where a title win establishes notability. She hasn't done anything important yet. OWOW has not been proven reliable, but is permitted to be used only when it covers a non-controversial item, not 1/4 of an entire article. iMatthew talk at 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the "top stage" argument doesn't work for interviwers, they're not part of "WP:ATHLETE" after all. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 11:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still to me, working in WWE makes someone notable. I don't go by athlete much. WP:PW really needs its own notablity rules.--WillC 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So according to "WP:WILLC" She's notable for having appeared for the WWE, next we'll have referee articles, camera men, lighting crew and Bobby who worked security at a couple of shows as "Notable". But I'm glad to that you clarified that your "support" was based on nothing more than "I like it". MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still to me, working in WWE makes someone notable. I don't go by athlete much. WP:PW really needs its own notablity rules.--WillC 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She held a "title" in FCW and now appears on the main WWE roster. Even though she's primarily an interviewer, she was recently featured as a lumberjill in a match (a sign that she may continue to become more active). LucyDoo (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Divas of the WWE roster are notable as long as they are active. Second of two POV pushes by the nominator (first being Beverley Mullins). !! Justa Punk !! 06:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once AGAIN, simply appearing in the WWE does not prove her to be notable. If she does something in the WWE to prove her notability, maybe we can consider giving her an article. Can you tell me what she's done to do that already? Just appearing doesn't mean anything. iMatthew talk at 10:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ENT, and the article has WP:NOTPLOT problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She's an on-air personality/character for the most prominent wrestling company in the world. She held a title for a fairly prominent organization. It seems to me that champions from FCW have articles. To delete this article would be sharply contrary to precedents about which wrestling personalities have articles. Notability for wrestling personalities shouldn't be treated like its a hall of fame standard any more than that would be done in other fields. Lots of obscure backbenchers from Congress have articles. Even if they are relatively obscure, served only one or two terms, and don't have a major piece of legislation to their credit, their election to Congress conveys a certain level of notability. Similarly, I don't think a WWE personality needs to have several years in WWE, a WWE title, etc. Reaching the WWE itself is pretty significant. The argument that this opens the door for referees to have articles doesn't make sense because several referees were already deemed notable enough to have articles. WWE personalities like refs and interviews have enough notabilit to merit an article. A dispute about a particular cite should lead to a discussion of content rather than total deletion of the article. --JamesAM (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All incorrect. A fire starting in a home is insignificant. A fire starting in a home that spreads to other homes and burns down ten houses is significant. A person who works in WWE is insignificant. A person who does notable things in the WWE is significant. If you understand my example with the fire compared to the employee, you should understand why she's not notable. iMatthew talk at 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Same as above.--WillC 03:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per James Am and Justa Punk. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:02, 28 October 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.