Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naoya Nomura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Heartslover.dia.pos (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 17 April 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Naoya Nomura (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)

Japanese wrestler with no significant independent coverage or indication of notability as a wrestler or entertainer.Mdtemp (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it should be keeped beacause it complete's the Ajpw roster and its just a matter of time until he wins a title or a tournament.

User:Dragonlover18 23:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlove18 (talkcontribs) [reply]

  • Keep - it should be keeped beacause its just a matter of time until he wins a title and he was elected 2014 Rookie of the year at 3rd place

User:Heartslover.dia.pos 23:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlove18 (talkcontribs) [reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. I recognize that there is a plausible argument for deletion. In particular, I recognize that one could argue that Nomura does not "inherit" notability from his stable. But there is an equally plausible argument in the other direction -- many (most?) of the sports projects have guidelines that say, in effect, if you've played in even one game at the major-league level, you're presumed to be notable. So, I'm seeing two plausible arguments that point us in opposite directions. And without a compelling reason to delete, I opted for "keep". Also, after reading your comment, I went and checked the roster article for the AJPW. I found that most of the wrestlers listed on the roster do have their own articles. Of course, that doesn't refute your argument, but it does bolster my position a little bit. One final note -- regardless of our being on opposite sides of this debate, I think we can agree that the debate would probably have been unnecessary if the folks at WP:WRESTLING set forth some criteria for determining notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]