Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maestro (wrestler)

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. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Maestro (wrestler)

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

Lovingly maintained autobio by a marginal pro "wrestler" and small-time actor, who seems to sockpuppet as well under at least two names plus (apparently) IP edits. Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is no Hulk Hogan, but regularly worked for several years on international mainstream TV (
WP:RUBBISH). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a serious conflict of interest going on here, and we need to take steps to fix that. However, I agree with Hulk that that is a separate issue and the subject itself is notable enough for an article.LM2000 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in order to
blow it up and start over. An alternative would be to block the editor, but that would be draconian. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that our primary focus is to build an encyclopedia, rather than to be nice to disruptive editors, deleting the article would be far more draconian than blocking the editor.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

NiciVampireHeart and Hulk have already gone to work, removing quite a bit of the unsourced fluff added by the user in question. The article isn't perfect but it is salvageable and shouldn't require too much work to fix up. Because this editor was only here to build up his own article, and not to help the encyclopedia, the suggested "draconian" measure seems more sensible to me.LM2000 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is notable enough for an article and I don't think issues with the subject trying to inflate his importance is enough of a problem to require deletion of the entire article.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2013 (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.