Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Sky

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. The discussion below indicates increased notability and availability of reliable, secondary sources since the last discussion. The article has also been improved to include better sources information, thus satisfying the verifiability requirements. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet Sky

Velvet Sky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This page was taken to DRV with a result of userfying. No discussion about bringing it to the mainspace was had. This is almost identical to the copy that keeps being deleted. There are still no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Smashville^BONK! 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The original deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Madison) was closed on 26 September 2007, with the consensus being that minor achievements on the independent wrestling circuit and being an unsuccessful contestant on WWE's Diva Search do not make for notability. However, since September 2007, "Velvet Sky" is now on the roster of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, appearing regularly in their shows and pay-per-views, and there seems to be broad consensus that this is sufficient notability to justify a Wikipedia article. Hence the calls in the DRV discussion to overturn the original deletion. --Stormie (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This was the third time the article had been brought to DRV. There is nothing new to make this person notable that hasn't been presented before. --Smashville^BONK! 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It was the first time that a draft was created and presented to DRV as a proposal. To be honest the previous userspace version would probably have been moved to article space instead of being deleted if it had been presented to DRV rather than being used as an end-run around the AfD (as discussed at MfD) --Stormie (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep since it was salted there was a discussion to unsalt (kinda has to be don't there?) the discussion was based on the recent developments in the notability of this person. It was decided to unsalt, ergo that the article has enough notability to warrant an article. Is the original article deleted on September 26th almost identical to this one? maybe parts are but the TNA section is new and it's through her work in TNA that she's achieved notability, so it doesn't matter if the early parts are the same (especially since we can't change history). MPJ-DK (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This page is 95 percent identical other than cleanups and the addition of one sentence to a page that has been repeatedly shot down at DRV and was finally deleted at MfD. There are still no secondary sources and there is still nothing of consequence to make this person notable. If an admin would look at the deleted version of User:ThisDude62/sandbox, they would see this. --Smashville^BONK! 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The entire "Total Nonstop Action" section is new, since it all happened after it was deleted originally. And since she's gained notability what she's done before warrants inclusion, the past hasn't changed her previous accomplishments haven't changed. I see plenty of sources independent of this person listed. It's also generally accepted that working regularly (in a non-jobber role) and making regular PPV apperances for the second biggest promotion in the US makes the person notable MPJ-DK (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I should have been more specific...there are no reliable secondary sources. And the majority of the TNA was in the version presented at DRV in November. --Smashville^BONK! 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Secondary sources are generally preferable to primary ones, it's true, but are you also arguing that TNA news releases are not a reliable source when it comes to who is active in their promotion? --Stormie (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Stormie and MPJ. Nikki311 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep but per Smashville's reasoning, I would agree, so I'm mainly neutral. (Note:This isn't a vote, it's my reasoning for deletion). --Solumeiras (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Stormie and MPJ. --Naha|^(talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Subject is notable by being an active member of a major wrestling promotion. Subject appears on television almost weekly. Furthermore, article is notable. What else is needed?LessThanClippers (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Article can be improved and I'm sure a decent secondary source can be found. A few problems with an article are no reason to delete it again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - article can be improved, and her notability has increased since she started with TNA. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know too much about wrestling, but she appears to be notable from what's provided here. Terraxos (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Article asserts notability and is supported by reliable secondary sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There's no point tagging this article for deletion, when there's plenty of other similar articles about indy wrestlers around that are poorer-sourced then this, but which haven't been targeted the way this one has been. The article for this person has sufficient notability. Haleth (Haleth) 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.47.250 (talk)
• Comment. I see a bunch of keeps, but I still don't see any reliable secondary sources. TNA runs a business based on fictional storylines. Their website is not even remotely a reliable secondary source. The article still fails WP:V. --Smashville^BONK! 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Information published by wrestling franchises has been accepted as a source for a number of Featured Lists, see List of WWE Intercontinental Champions for instance. I think you're holding a minority opinion of you don't feel that a franchise is a reliable source for fictional/kayfabe events and storylines within their own franchise. --Stormie (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reopened so as to establish consensus without doubt

-SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have already voted about to keep the article, but I wanted to address Smashville's incorrect statement that there are no reliable secondary sources. SLAM! Wrestling is a reliable source. Online World of Wrestling is another quality source. I have also added Solie's Title Histories, a reliable secondary source, to the article. The primary sources also lend credibility to the article, as wrestling promotions alone are able to consider their results official or unofficial (for example, The Rockers cannot be considered former WWF Tag Team champions despite the fact that they beat the champions for the belts). As a result, official results are often best taken from the promotions themselves. At this point, the claim that the article does not meet WP:V is not a legitimate argument, as the reliable sources in the article show otherwise. While I will agree that the article, in some of it's previous incarnations, should have been deleted, this version does not. The subject has firmly established her notability since the original article was deleted, and nominating this article for deletion based on the fact that it was deleted in the past makes no sense. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all other keeps. I can't say anything new.Undeath (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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.