Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian M Barnett

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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Brian M Barnett

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

Don't believe that this person meets GNG. I struggled to find RS for him. Don't think he meets

WP:ENTERTAINER Gbawden (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

✈ 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP This person meets GNG. This person has preformed at the highest level in two sporting fields. There are numerous links showing media support http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/calendar/the-ultimate-tribute-6462439,http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=109117 as well as factual statical information http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=barnet002bri&mobile=false, http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=10398. He meets both
WP:SPORTS Sp0rtzNut1 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, he didn't perform "in the highest level in two sporting fields." In baseball, he was in the minor league and training. In wrestling, he worked dark matches, tryouts, and as a jobber. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether his mentions in the Phoenix News Times count as significant third party coverage to meet
WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 05:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the majority of the sources are
WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 08:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now at best, draft and userfy and also mention elsewhere if needed, as this article is, despite the current sourcing, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage of the subject come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (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.