- 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. Daniel 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reggie Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The article does not establish any kind of notability. In the opening sentence "who performed alongside other prominent females like" is meaningless, hundreds of wrestlers perfomed alongside Terri and Madusa. Holding the IWA World Women's Championship does not establish notability, and the imdb entry shows only four films on her resume, all four of which were bit parts. Essentially she is a bit part actress who once held a Women's wrestling title for seven months twelve years ago. Not notable. Darrenhusted 11:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
- Strong Keep, very bizarre nomination. All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling is notable. Ladies Professional Wrestling Association is notable. She was involved in another that was also plenty notable.
Latest in a string of questionable AfDs by the nominator. Actually, forget that last part, I was mistaken. —Xezbeth 11:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Comment, there is nothing to this article, when I PROD-ed it I said that a PROD removal will lead to AfD. And don't forget notability is not inherited, just because she was involved in a notable fed does not make her notable. The article needs more than an imdb ref. Darrenhusted 11:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Fairly notable, additional info should be added, properly created. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, from the notability guidlines:
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.
- "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
Those massive boxes below the AfD box are there for a reason. Darrenhusted 11:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be misapplying the standards. Significant coverage is preferred but, wp:bio guidelines specifically say meet ANY of the following. The guidelines allow notability to be established with trivial sources if it can be proved that the subject meets WP:bio. Previously you've said that you considered the guidelines for wrestlers midway between that of entertainer and athlete. An eloquent solution, and one I concur with. Looking at those two applicable standards:
Athlete: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis Entertainer: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Combining the two it seems there are 3 things the evidence must be sufficient to prove notability for wrestlers
- Is the federation/group in question a professional one that is worthy of note? Both you and Jules have admitted this
is the case for LPWA and AJW. It probably should be true for Arsion also, but that's an article for a later date.
- Was she a part of said group? Again neither of you have stated and objection to this point.
- Did she play a "significant role" in the production?
LPWA: She was in two matches on their pay per view accounting for a significant amount of runtime. She was a f requent competitor on the nationally syndicated LPWA show. She's on the official best of tapes the LPWA released prior to bankruptcy.
AJW: She had a 3-4 year run with them. Just over a year worth of title reigns with the second and third highest ranked titles in the organization. Being one of 2 foreign wrestlers booked for the highest attended card in the history of women's wrestling. High profile feuds with two HoF members. I can provide the date she subsequently signed with Arsion, because they considered it a big enough deal to film. Arsion already had Aja Kong on the roster.
So I think the answer is yes for both the LPWA and AJW. If the answer to all 3 of these points is yes, then she meets the minimum standards for notability. The original article was far short of it but it has seen major improvement. I'd prefer not to list the full wrestling filmography unless you're going to require it, because huge lists are kind of a waste of space imho.Horrorshowj 04:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The three films she has appeared in are her full filmography. There is still not significant coverage, no one denies she was a wrestler who wrestled, but because "Pro" wrestling is not a professional league in the same way there is a difference between AAA and MLB you need more than fansites and passing mentions in results, which is still all you have. Results pages, fansites and video import sites do not mean she is notable, wrestling in a notable federation does not make her notable, feuds with other notable wrestlers do not make her notable. The article now is bigger than when the AfD began but is still does not establish notability. Darrenhusted 10:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from misrepresenting what I said and respond to my actual arguments. I differentiated wrestling from legit sports by including the entertainment guidelines and building my case around that. Per the first paragraph of wp:n "A subject is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." (emphasis mine). This was pointed out quite a while ago, and means that if the subject meets wp:bio they aren't required to meet the general standards you've quoted.
- The three films she has appeared in are her full filmography. There is still not significant coverage, no one denies she was a wrestler who wrestled, but because "Pro" wrestling is not a professional league in the same way there is a difference between AAA and MLB you need more than fansites and passing mentions in results, which is still all you have. Results pages, fansites and video import sites do not mean she is notable, wrestling in a notable federation does not make her notable, feuds with other notable wrestlers do not make her notable. The article now is bigger than when the AfD began but is still does not establish notability. Darrenhusted 10:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Bio A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.(emphasis mine)
- Entertainers: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Would be the applicable standard. Wrestling federation fits easily into the other productions category, and until differentiated by a separate guideline wrestlers qualify under entertainer. My use of professional was intended to respect your opposition to microfeds assuming exaggerated importance. I apologize for using it, as that wasn't the best choice of word. We agree that the AJW and LPWA qualify as notable, therefore under WP:bio the only remaining requirement Bennett needs for notability is to have played a significant part in them. It is permissible to use trivial sources to establish this, the operative phrase in the guidelines is "may not be sufficient", which is much different from "is not sufficient. How specifically does her record not qualify as playing a significant role in the two federations/productions? "Significant coverage" is not required, as it is not the standard her notability is being asserted under. Horrorshowj 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds of wrestlers every year who wrestle in hundreds of matches in hundreds of federations, as opposed to athletes who compete in competitions (and not all will qualify for those competitions meaning those who qualify are among the elite and are notable). So from the point of view of athletes pro-wrestlers are legion and thus being a pro-wrestler does not make you notable alone, as for the feds you've listed and links, she is only listed in results pages in passing, not mentioned directly in any way, there are hundreds of names on those pages, almost none of them will need an article in an encyclopedia. She is not notable simply for being a wrestler. Secondly her filmography could be listed on three lines, her imdb profile is very short, she was a bit-part actor, and most bit-part actors are not notable either. None of the links show what you would expect as significant coverage, a GSearch doesn't yield much else. I do not doubt that she had a career in wrestling, I just don't see that as enough to keep this page, and for a fourteen year veteran you would expect a little more then just results pages and a fansite. Darrenhusted 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again that's not the issue at hand. "Significant coverage" is not required unless that is the standard under which notability is being asserted. Her career was primarily in Japan, thus it would be hard to establish that particular standard without reading Japanese. I know it was claimed the general standard is the only applicable one on a misinformed post on the Pro Wrestling project page, but that doesn't make it an accurate representation of policy. wp:n says that specific guideline trumps general.
- Wrestling federations are entertainment productions, thus playing a significant part in a notable pro-wrestling federation qualifies under entertainment guidelines. I am not claiming every indy wrestler/backyard wrestler/bit player/minor promotion etc. warrants a page as you seem to be insinuating. Athletic is irrelevant, and isn't being debated as the standard. Whether other people would qualify or not isn't relevant. The only thing that matters for notability under WP:biois whether this:
- There are hundreds of wrestlers every year who wrestle in hundreds of matches in hundreds of federations, as opposed to athletes who compete in competitions (and not all will qualify for those competitions meaning those who qualify are among the elite and are notable). So from the point of view of athletes pro-wrestlers are legion and thus being a pro-wrestler does not make you notable alone, as for the feds you've listed and links, she is only listed in results pages in passing, not mentioned directly in any way, there are hundreds of names on those pages, almost none of them will need an article in an encyclopedia. She is not notable simply for being a wrestler. Secondly her filmography could be listed on three lines, her imdb profile is very short, she was a bit-part actor, and most bit-part actors are not notable either. None of the links show what you would expect as significant coverage, a GSearch doesn't yield much else. I do not doubt that she had a career in wrestling, I just don't see that as enough to keep this page, and for a fourteen year veteran you would expect a little more then just results pages and a fansite. Darrenhusted 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LPWA: She was in two matches on their pay per view accounting for a significant amount of runtime. She was a frequent competitor on the nationally syndicated LPWA show. She's on the official best of tapes the LPWA released prior to bankruptcy.
- AJW: She had a 3-4 year run with them. Just over a year worth of title reigns with the second and third highestranked titles in the organization. Being one of 2 foreign wrestlers booked for the highest attended card in the history of women's wrestling. High profile feuds with two HoF members. I can provide the date she subsequently signed with Arsion, because they considered it a big enough deal to film. Arsion already had Aja Kong on the roster.
- qualifies as a playing a significant part in the fiction of the two productions that have met notability guidelines. Depth of coverage is not the relevant issue. The minimum level of coverage is whatever is needed to establish that ANY listed standard in WP:Bio is met. Furthermore, if the project's proposed WP:Bio addendum goes through the AJW run alone would probably qualify her. I specifically said WRESTLING filmography. Which is around 30 tapes, not 3.
- I know you're not thrilled with having an article use trivial sources. I understand that and would prefer not to myself, however it is permissible to do so under the notability policy. As previously stated 7 years isn't that recent, and there's a language barrier with the country the coverage would be presumed to originate from. A lot of the English language websites disappeared during the joshi meltdown, which further limits the options for researching joshi articles. Beyond what's here: I've found a few columns dealing with the joshi scene at the time that can provide some more plot, coverage for her FMW days, and know which issue of Flex magazine her article is in. I might buy that if this passes AfD to fill out the article a bit more. Horrorshowj 04:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Never has been. Especially when it CAN be sourced, like this article. —Xezbeth 12:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... lack of sources is the most common reason why an article is deleted. Or rather, "notability" is, where notability is defined as being the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't see any reliable independent sources that go beyond trivial mentions for the subject of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs)
- Its hard to locate concrete internet sources for someone who was around pre-internet and was better known in Japan than the United States. However, I've added what I could find. —Xezbeth 22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still fails "significant coverage". And that second link has pages for the other champions but not Reggie Bennett, what does that tell you? Darrenhusted 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... lack of sources is the most common reason why an article is deleted. Or rather, "notability" is, where notability is defined as being the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't see any reliable independent sources that go beyond trivial mentions for the subject of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs)
- Lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Never has been. Especially when it CAN be sourced, like this article. —Xezbeth 12:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per Xezbeth. Callelinea 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of reliable secondary sources. Google search shows up nothing reliable & non-trivial. JulesH 14:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The existing article needs lots of work, but she held both the IWA and the All-Pacific titles in All Japan's Women's Pro-Wrestling (the latter belt being their 2nd most prestigious singles belt), competed for both AJW and ARSION in Japan along with several organizations in the USA, and wrestled against the very notable Chigusa Nagayo at 'Big Egg Universe' at the Tokyo Dome in 1994, the best attended women's wrestling show in history. Pure Josh 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, a bunch of inline citations to websites which mention her in passing, the one exception being a homepage run by her. She still does not meet significant coverage. I do not doubt that she wrestled, nor that she won a title but if the only source available is her own webpage then she does not meet the requirements. Padding out the page with a couple of results and inline sites does not establish her notabiltity. She may have wrestled against notable wrestlers and for notable companies but that does not make her notable. Darrenhusted 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree that the article could still be improved, as I had limited time yesterday to work on it. I think the ultimate decision on Bennett could set a precedent for who stays and who goes from women's wrestling, particular with wrestlers who spent all of most of their careers in Japan. I'd like to hear Darrenhusted's input on whether he feels Bennett fails notability because her career accomplishments (i.e. winning 2 of AJW's secondary belts, 2 high profile matches against Wrestler Observer HOFers) are not quite good enough or if it's mostly an issue that the current sources are kind of weak. If someone has better sources, I'd encourage them to add them to the article. I understand how this wrestler is 'borderline' for warranting inclusion in Wikipedia. Pure Josh 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, the sources are weak, [1] and [2] mention her in passing, [3] is not a reliable source, that she has won titles is not the problem so this [4] and [5] confirm that she won the titles (although winning a title does not necessarily make a wrestler notable), which means the article at the moment relies on one source [6] and is just a re-write of that article. And none of this help establish notability, passing references and names listed on results sites do not constitute "significant coverage", even the OWOW article fails to paint the picture of a major wrestling talent, for 14 years in the business there seems to be very little. And I don't think there are better sources out there because she isn't a significant wrestler. Darrenhusted 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The geocities site isn't her personal site. It's a fan run site, as the mention repeatedly. They also mention that the article in question originally appeared in 1wrestling.com which I think does meet wp:rs for notability. It would be preferred to link directly to the latter, obviously, but I'm not sure that's possible since they are a subscription service.Horrorshowj 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her career was pre-internet craze, and she spent most of it in Japan. It's therefore unsurprising that her coverage in English Language websites is a bit lacking. She was in PWI a few times before heading to Japan, but that was a long time ago. She was a significant part of every notable women's wrestling group during her career, and worked well enough to headline a show at the Egg dome as previously mentioned. I disagree about lack of references to her work, more that they aren't convenient. Great references are probably going to involve translation, which is not part of my skill set. Horrorshowj 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Found another issue with sources. Apparently her name is actually Reggie Bennet, found websites using both. She appears to have been involved in the ECW Barely Legal PPV, although I can't find a picture to confirm it's the same one. Also placed in the 1981 Ms. America contest. The career retrospective as previously noted is from 1wrestling, which is run by Bill Apter editor of PWI. That should count as an independent, reputable source.Horrorshowj 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She wasn't on Barely Legal, and a re-printed interview from a fansite which needs to link to pay-site does not sound like WP:RS. It still doesn't answer the question about significant coverage. And if there is not clear source on her name then what does that say about her notability. In a google search most of the results come back to this page or the imdb, or pages using both as their source. Darrenhusted 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She shows up as both spellings of the last name. I believe the correct spelling is with 1 t, however that's based on the bodybuilding competition and that it seems to be preferred on the Japanese originated sites. I don't think that says anything about her notability since I've seen several different spelling for Hulk Hogan's real last name.
- ECW Barely Legal appearance is confirmed. She was part of Raven's Flock. I'm not sure how long she stuck around ECW, but I've seen a couple of references to Heyman having an angle planned for her and Francine that fell through. Horrorshowj 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this review of an ECW event http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/video_reviews/37792/From-the-Back-of-My-Closet:-ECW-Bloodsport:-The-Most-Violent-Matches.htm that describes Bennett's role interfering on Raven's behalf in a triple threat match between Raven, Terry Funk, and Stevie Richards for the ECW. So she was at least very briefly involved in Raven's stable in ECW. I'm not sure if 411Mania counts as a reliable source and if this information should be added to her article, assuming it survives. Pure Josh 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You really think interefering in one match in ECW makes her notable? Darrenhusted 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this review of an ECW event http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/video_reviews/37792/From-the-Back-of-My-Closet:-ECW-Bloodsport:-The-Most-Violent-Matches.htm that describes Bennett's role interfering on Raven's behalf in a triple threat match between Raven, Terry Funk, and Stevie Richards for the ECW. So she was at least very briefly involved in Raven's stable in ECW. I'm not sure if 411Mania counts as a reliable source and if this information should be added to her article, assuming it survives. Pure Josh 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, she seems to be more notable in Japan than in the US. I'd say she is notable for winning both the IWA World Women's Championship and the All Pacific Championship in All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling. Nikki311 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sourcing issues with being partially "pre-internet boom" and partially because she's worked exclusively in Japan should be given time to be worked out since it's not easily available MPJ-DK 08:30, 13 July 2007 (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.