Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Scaia

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 delete. BorgQueen 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Scaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

This was nominated by a sock of User:JB196, which qualifies for a speedy close. However, I am goign to nominate the article myself since the guy's main claim to fame is participation on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, whihc is a Usenet newsgroup and thus has absolutely no bar to participation. If venturing opinions on Usenet makes you notable then even I would get an article. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete (again); he has, in fact, been involved with other commercial sites, including a stint on a CBS-owned website, and isn't specifically a Usenet phenomenon. I think most Internet wrestling fans will know who he is. BUT... I tagged this thing forever ago, and nobody has come up with much in the way of reliable sources indicating his notability. Thus, I'm for a weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, feature writer for a WP:WEB-failing website is not notability (leaving aside Usenet, which I don't think is actually presented as his claim to fame, just his, er, staircase to it). --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

• Reluctant Delete, Actually his claim to fame would be wrestline and apparently gettin paid for it. He is notable among internet wrestling fans but do not know if he reaches the threshold of notability since he has not had any book published. I know Scott Keith has like mentioned in the first go-round of this afd. I would say he should be included once he has something published, if he ever does. MrMurph101 22:15, 15 January 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.