Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Delaney

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Delaney

Non-notable wrestler. He worked as a "jobber" (a person that loses to the known people) for a few ECW television shows for World Wrestling Entertainment, and that's it. He has no contract with the company, and it's wrong to just crystal ball he will be getting one. Many people over the years have had his role, and a good percent aren't notable. There is no proof Colin is notable at this time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above, and the fact that WWE does not acknowledge the man with his own profile and he has no real role in WWE or previous background information. Striking out deletion vote same as per <sSuriel.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete- If Ranjin Singh, who has been with the WWE for a while now, is not notable for an article yet, why would a jobber, who has been with the WWE for three weeks, be notable for an article? iMatthew (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per the discussion on the WP:PW talk page. iMatthew 20:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Keep per discussion at WT:PW. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep - I'm working on it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keep per discussion at WT:PW. Cheers, L A X 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Withdrawing delete as article currently under work. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is currently under work. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs time to develop. Deleting this article would be like demolishing a planned building while in the middle of construction. Just be patient. This article will be expanded as times passes by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.176.55 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence on this one. I see both sides of the argument and both are valid. I think this should be marked "No Consensus" because we can't keep this AfD open indefinitely just to wait and see what happens on ECW. Get Dumb 21:03, 16 January 2008 (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.