Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Docimo

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Docimo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable wrestler. Clearly a vanity piece. Fails

WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A wrestler who worked only in no notable independent promotions. No notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real indication of notability, most likely created by someone with close relation to subject. Greyjoy^talk 12:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant coverage of a wrestler who never made it to the big name promotions.Sandals1 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Whilst wrestling for a "big name promotion", clearly make notablity easier, it's not a prerequisit for an article on the wrestler. There are many bios, including GAs that have never worked for a "Big promotion", and there are wrestlers that work for the WWE, that do not meet notability criteria. This one should be deleted simply due to it's lack of coverage Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is very promotional and is likely written by a CoI editor whose name I see is "Darkness138", the same as the wrestler's ring name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing demonstrating even border-line notability - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator. It is a vanity piece. No significant sources to merit this entry. Den... (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2018 (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.