Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Jack Mulligan
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Black Jack Mulligan
Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Not to be confused with the similarly named American Blackjack Mulligan. Nikki♥311 13:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep In coming to this AFD through
WP:GNG" despite the article stating that he wrestled on network television. Then we read "No significant coverage in reliable independent sources", which to me implies a belief that New Society isn't possibly a reliable source. Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom and professional wrestling in the 1970s are two (among numerous) subtopics that the regulars of WP:PW have consistently shown no desire or obligation to give appropriate weight to in the course of our coverage. And speaking of walled gardens, should it also be pointed out that the nominator added the AFD to the wrestling-related deletion sorting list but no other such lists? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
]
- ]
- Delete total and complete failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not seeing significant converage in those necessary reliable sources. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I've tried and failed to find sources to improve the article. Part of that is because searches are flooded for results for the more notable Blackjack Mulligan, part of that is because the subject's heyday was decades ago and older sources are just hard to find, and part of that is because he wasn't that notable in the first place. RadioKAOS has switched my !vote several times over the years and I typically agree that we neglect this era of wrestling, but I'm not convinced that a subject is automatically notable just because they had a bit part on a national television show.LM2000 (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Irregardless if the topic is notable or not; if we can't find sources about him, the page is worthless. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails ]
- 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.