Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zivile Raudoniene
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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zivile Raudoniene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet notability guideline. Another one who hasn't done anything, therefore the article is a crappy stub with three refs. iMatthew talk at 20:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in accordance with precedent of almost all Arnold Classic bodybuilding contest winners being notable enough for articles. Even if her wrestling career is borderline, her bodybuilding career (see here and here, among some of the other 16,500 results on a google search) is enough to assert notability. Heck Flex magazine even ran stories about her workout routine and favorite places in her hometown ([1] and [2]), which is certainly not something they do for just anybody. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with the reasons GaryColemanFan outlined above. While she's not notable yet as a wrestler, she is notable in her other profession (bodybuilding). LucyDoo (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Instantly notable with that bodybuilding win. If I may say so, this nomination is ridiculous. !! Justa Punk !! 06:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, ridiculous? Nominating an article in question is always OK. I suggest you strike that comment out. iMatthew talk at 10:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Stop trying to own AfD's if you wouldn't mind. I believe the nomination to be ridiculous and I have said why. !! Justa Punk !! 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand first of all that nothing I've said indicates I'm trying to own a discussion. You seem to be at a loss for words, and are putting unrelated policies into your sentences when they clearly don't belong. Your opinion on the nomination is irrelevant. Please only comment on the article in question, not the quality of the nomination. iMatthew talk at 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand that you are trying to dictate terms to me, which is a clear showing of ownership. I suggest you also review in the detail WP:CIVIL. These are both relevant to your conduct to which I am referring. It has been proven beyond doubt that this person is notable, and I stand by my comment that this nomination is ridiculous. Unless you can prove that the Arnold Classic is not notable. !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand first of all that nothing I've said indicates I'm trying to own a discussion. You seem to be at a loss for words, and are putting unrelated policies into your sentences when they clearly don't belong. Your opinion on the nomination is irrelevant. Please only comment on the article in question, not the quality of the nomination. iMatthew talk at 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Stop trying to own AfD's if you wouldn't mind. I believe the nomination to be ridiculous and I have said why. !! Justa Punk !! 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, ridiculous? Nominating an article in question is always OK. I suggest you strike that comment out. iMatthew talk at 10:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep per GaryColemanFan's sourcing which establishes her notability through her bodybuilding career regardless of her wrestling accomplishments or lack thereof. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 22 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.