Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McLane

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. Of note is that while Deb has the word "delete" in bold in their !vote, in their further comment they proposed that the article be reverted to an earlier version, which essentially equates to keeping the article. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. Per the discussion herein, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David McLane

David McLane (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)

With the current version and its current state, it's not easy to comfortable establish better notability and improvement aside from being known as the organizer and founder of those wrestling groups and my searches found links here, here, here, here and here which may suggest this can be better improved but I'm not entirely convinced of that so here we are at AfD. Pinging Deb, Trackinfo, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and author Mvsrhollywood. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, but I am not even sure what you are saying is wrong with the notability of the subject of this article, or anything that would make it subject to deletion. If you can articulate that, it would give me some reason to respond. This article certainly has been whacked since the last time I visited, maybe the significance has had some key points mysteriously disappear. Trace the wikilnks. Clearly McLane is THE wrestling promoter in the genre of Women's Professional Wrestling. He created at least 4 major promotions; one that was on worldwide television for four years with himself as an on camera star (and the subject of a recent documentary recounting the camp phenomenon it became); another appears to be on a current revival into a third season. Wikipedia has articles on decidedly smaller two-bit wrestling promoters who have never seen a moment of actual television coverage much less global syndication. And there is the other sports programming he has created and produced. Can this article get improved? Certainly--even by digging into the history of deleted information that used to be in this article. Is there a complaint about its writing style looking like an advertisement, yes. None of that has anything to do with the already established notability of the subject, which is unquestionable.

This is exactly the ill founded, shot in the dark, fishing expedition that I complained about leading to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal. I'll suggest you stop this waste of time. Withdraw the attack on the existence of this article and lets start a discussion about improving this article, an article that has been mangled by too many editors and wrestling fanatics over the years. You do not improve articles by deleting them. You are going down the wrong path. Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To me it's fairly blatant advertising, and I considered a speedy when I first looked at it. It reads like a CV. If no one is interested in fixing that, then deletion is inevitable. Deb (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my !vote/comments below, which addresses this point. I wanted to take exception to the last sentence of your statement. I don't have the enthusiasm for Wikipedia that I once did for one simple reason, namely that we're moving farther away from being a proper information resource and more in the direction of a popularity contest which reflects whatever happens to trend on any given day, and that such "popularity" (plus other intangibles such as Google hits) should determine the encyclopedia's content. If you wish to believe that someone who is chiefly notable for activities in decades past is really not notable, due to how long ago those activities occurred and the fact that any existing sources aren't going to automatically fall out of the sky for you, that's fine. You shouldn't burden others with such an stance, however. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment - Actually, to make a more constructive suggestion, I propose we return to the last good edit and work from there. Deb (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement that this article needs a rewrite. That does not mean the article should be subject to deletion. I'm starting the rewrite in my sandbox because I do not believe I should be responding to your improper AfD like a trained monkey. It is a perversion of the AfD process to do this and both of you as experienced editors should know better. Trackinfo (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking? The current version is entirely questionable and is appropriately aligned with AfD and no one here is saying this is "improper" and "trained monkey". SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The edit mentioned contains a number of unsourced claims, including some relating to a drug company. A complete rewrite is in my opinion needed. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since there are delete votes relative to the content I am succumbing to the extortion of this improper AfD. I have added significantly more sourcing. How 16 sources were not adequate confounds me. The previous version of the article had issues that could be solved by editing the content, not deletion. How anything in the previous version indicated this should have been an AfD absolutely shocks me. But now there are 39 covering each phase. It is an unquestionable keep, or a precedent set by this deletion would take wikipedia's article count well below 5,000,000. Trackinfo (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's plenty here, and even if the overall quality of the sources isn't great, it must surely be enough. Re-write would be good, though Tippex for the soul (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a toughie, leaning towards weak keep – Don't we have a page somewhere imploring people to use common sense? I guess most folks snorted "It's only an essay" and shut it out of their mind. As far as common sense goes, if he has Leroy Neiman doing work for him, then of course he's somebody. Also as far as common sense goes, the article in its current state is hideous. The claims of advert and CV are dead-on. I think I would only watch any of his programs for the same reason I would watch reruns of
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Oh yeah, those are also essays. Regardless, we're here to judge the notability of the subject, correct? More importantly than the tie to Neiman I mention above, there's mentions that he's lurked around the bottom rungs of professional wrestling (including in on-air roles) for decades, that he's produced multiple television programs which have recieved national exposure, that's he's promoted concerts in stadiums. The sources aren't the greatest, and it doesn't add up to much, but it does add up to notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]