Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnie vineyard

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. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Vinnie vineyard

Vinnie vineyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, so there are multiple possible claims to notability, but I found none of them hold the water. A third-party unsuccessful political candidate to a state parliament is hardly worth mentioning; same for a DJ at local radio stations. The wrestling career falls short of WP:NBOX.

The real claim is probably WP:GNG based on the coverage in local newspapers, but I do not think it really qualifies. I found nothing that is not already in the article (though I probably missed one of the multiple aliases). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed -- none of the claims of notability stand up to scrutiny. Vineyard's wrestling career has not gone beyond regional venues, and the coverage provided all appears to be from his local hometown paper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!
• Keep -- Vineyard has more articles that are nationwide that pop up under "Funkmaster V". He has been in the national publication Pro Wrestling Illustrated multiple times, appeared in National Television in a starring role and has popped up under his musical exploits and on national Libertarian webpages.

Boohickley(talk)

@Boohickley: Please read WP:RS. No seasoned Wikipedia editor will bother to click a link from youtube or blogspot, because those are self-published sources.

To keep the discussion page readable, I collapsed your links in a box. You can cancel that move by removing the {{cot|…}} and {{cob}} templates if you so wish. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WikiDan61. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete That this subject has gotten press is not in question. The problem is that regardless of the diversity of areas of activity of this subject--including those undertaken with a stage name--all of it falls under the trivial/local/promotional umbrella. This includes whatever mention there is in a nationally distributed publication or tv show. Are we to suggest that any person or topic that can make such a claim deserves a wikipedia article? Example: every player who has ever suited up for Notre Dame football has also been on national television and, most likely, the subject of a newspaper article. I'm just not seeing much "stand out" accomplishment from this person. Another point: the sole vote for "keep" is from the articles' author who appears here with a biased opinion. As such it should be stricken. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments unrelated to the article at hand collapsed for readability of the main thread

Comment @ShelbyMarion: Opinions are, by definition, biased. Boohickley has a biased opinion that this article should remain. You have a biased opinion that this article should be deleted. The fact that your opinion may be more in line with Wikipedia policy doesn't make it any less biased. Let Boo's comment stand and be evaluated among the others. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply @WikiDan61: Oh, yes. You are right. My error in using the word "bias." Perhaps a better word might be.... partial/impartial? The point being, as an editor with no skin in the game, I am pointing out impartial reasons for deletion. Whereas Boohickley, as the author, has essentially already argued in favor of preserving the article; his "keep" vote, then, is a partial second vote. Is not the end point of these afd discussions to tally the number of keeps vs. deletes suggested by impartial observers? I'm not suggesting strike his comments from the discussions. It's to simply not count his vote when tallying from a list of objective opinions. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Comment @ShelbyMarion: As is often pointed out, AFD is not a vote. It is a discussion regarding the merits of an article related to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have seen many AFDs where the result (keep or delete) represented the minority of opinions expressed, because the majority of opinions were not based on policy but rather on strong feelings one way or the other. That being said, article authors are free to comment at the AFD to try to convince the reviewing administrator that their article meets criteria for inclusion. There has never been any suggestion that article authors should be barred from commenting at AFDs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC) PS: I'm going to collapse this portion of the discussion as it is irrelevant to the article at hand. If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so at my user talk page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2016 (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.