Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rionne McAvoy

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.

Rionne McAvoy

Rionne McAvoy (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)

Fails the notability test in most if not all relevant respects. Reads like a fan page and has done nothing notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. This is one of 3 AFDs actually set up by a non-registered user, then "helped" by editor GB now. The other 2 AFDs seemed to me to have misleading nominations. So I say Keep, as, one, it is not nominated by a registered user, and I don't see who has any responsibility here, as GB fan disavows it. And the article looks reasonable and has sources; the nomination seems low effort and vague. "Reads like a fan page" is a reason for tagging or editing, not for deletion. Why should we take this seriously? --doncram 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is no requirement for AFDs to be created by a registered user. The responsibility for the AFD goes to 203.12.30.74 who nominated it but did not have the technical ability to create this page. GB fan 00:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete "Reads like a fan page" may have led to the notability tagging, Doncram, and this was unanswered as far as I can tell for some time. The chance has been given to rewrite and it hasn't. Not notable per

Withdrawn per my comments on the Kellie Skater AfD. BerleT (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Very badly fails the notability test. Martial arts career totally unsourced with one claim tagged already, film career almost non existant by notability standards and wrestling career has barely begun and at present there appears no chance of improving on that. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as a martial artist or in the film industry.Mdtemp (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has done nothing in pro wrestling, martial arts or film that makes him notable. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• HOLD EVERYTHING This AfD was initiated by banned User:Justa Punk (see here for the admission. Let's just close it up and move on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is indeed the case. However, this still appears to be a reasonable AfD, and the outcome of closing this would inevitably be to immediately open another one, so I suggest we let it run. The closing administrator can judge any issues that occur. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the delete votes are suspicious, at the very least. For an account (Dragonfire X) to return to activity after 4 years away from Wikipedia and immediately gravitate to this trio of Australian wrestling deletion discussions (User:Justa Punk's m.o.) sounds like a
  WP:DUCK
  to me. I also notice that BerleT spends a disproportionately large time on Australian wrestling deletion discussions.

• GaryColemanFan is in violation of
  WP:POINT with these off topic comments and behaving in a paranoid manner. He should be ignored here and on all other relevant AfD's as his evidence is at best extremely circumstantial, and in the case of the IP's completely wrong. He has form for this and I abandoned my account a long time ago as a result. I'm only editing now because I just happened to notice that he was still at it when looking at the AfD for Carl Katter as I know him well, and I looked at his contributions. No doubt he'll come back with the obvious paranoid counter to prove I was right to just delete stuff as it's what he wants! Oh and this is my last edit because I'm not going to say anymore. Let's see what happens. (And if you want to block me for being a sock, you're an idiot. If you want to block me as a meat puppet, I'll take that only because I am in effect supporting Justa Punk even though I haven't been asked to) 1.124.170.156 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Doesn't appear notable for his martial arts, wrestling, or film work.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: call for closure with Keep I voted "Keep" above. This is one of three AFD noms (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rionne McAvoy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellie Skater (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartley Jackson} by a banned editor "helped" by editor User:GB fan who refused to take responsibility for the nomination, and it is a waste of regular editors' time. Deleting it per the banned editor's wishes would reward the banned editor, i.e. it would feed the troll. I call for immediate closure, which I believe is regular practice in this situation (though I am not really familiar with it), as per User:GaryColemanFan at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Rionne McAvoy, Kellie Skater and Hartley Jackson AfD's, "This can only turn out one of two ways: (1) Kept, or (2) Overturned on procedural grounds. Can we just close them now and save the hassle, please?". I endorse that. --doncram 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This guy is trained by Tajiri, just won a championship at Korakuen Hall and wrestled Matt Hardy in a singles match, yet you haters are saying he has done nothing in the wrestling world? He is a full time wrestler in Japan. Is it something against Australian wrestlers? Don't you have better things to do with your time than sit on here and worry about who is worth being on here? (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) — Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment There is definitely a group (or just Justapunk and his puppets) here that goes against Australian professional wrestling articles and I've been one of its biggest opponents, BUT McAvoy is nowhere near as notable as guys like Shane Haste and Mikey Nicholls. Being trained by Tajiri means nothing in terms of McAvoy's notability nor does wrestling Matt Hardy or being a "full time wrestler". There are thousands of "full time wrestlers" or wrestlers who have wrestled Matt Hardy out there who don't have (and shouldn't have) articles. Also, the title McAvoy won is not exactly a GHC or IWGP title, it's some little indy title no one has ever heard of. Maybe McAvoy will explode in a year or two, but I honestly don't think he's notable at the moment. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of people on Wikipedia who don't meet my definition of 'notable' too. And you are Welcome to your opinion but last time I checked meeting whatever definition you have as being notable isn't required to be a Wikipedia entry....... And I'm pretty sure he'd be more than happy to show you his 'credentials' if you wanted to meet him in the ring or dojo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanek (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Deanek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak Delete He's not notable as a martial artist or filmmaker. I'm certainly no expert on Australian pro wrestling, but even there the notability claims appear weak. None of the 3 keep votes are very convincing since two appear to be merely procedural in nature. The other invokes notability because of his trainer and/or opponent--both of which fall under
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails GNG on all counts. These AfDs may not have been made by good faith editors, but this is a case where that doesn't really matter as that isn't a good policy-based argument.LM2000 (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable martial artist/film maker. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non Notable 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Last post "Non Notable" again from Australia. While he may not be notable worldwide, he is certainly notable in Japan. He has had his story featured in the most famous pro wrestling magazine weekly pro wrestling, and after joining the Fujiwara group, and have been given his last name by Fujiwara himself, how can you say he is not notable? He is part of pro wrestling royalty after Fujiwara took him under his wing. This guy is more notable in Japan than so many other people who has the wikipedia themselves. I cannot understand you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I struck your keep vote. You are welcome to comment as much as you want, but please vote only once. The question is whether or not this individual is notable, not whether there are less notable people on WP (see

WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note - I trust this will not be closed until the sockpuppet investigation has shed more light on which votes are legitimate. Justa Punk has a history of stacking votes with puppets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2014 (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.