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. JForget 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jossie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The individual hasn't done anything notable in his career, so far. He was in the WWE training facility for a while, and now he holds a five-minute fake talk-show on the WWE's least important television show. None of that makes me believe he meets our notability requirements. iMatthew ^talk at 13:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you getting me? First, people should ignore the nominator's OR and POV about ECW. Besides being the GM in FCW (where he appears on TV every week), he also has a recurring interview segment on the internationally broadcasted ECW, which is often used to help build feuds. TJ Spyke 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "getting you." My comment about ECW isn't OR or my POV. It's just common sense. How does either of the things you mentioned make him notable? If he were to get fired today, in 5 years from now, would we really need to know that he was the on-screen GM of a training facility? No, of course not. Same goes for his "talk-show" - nothing notable has ever happened on it, right? iMatthew ^talk at 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is calling ECW "WWE's least important television show" not POV? Besides the fact that you are implying A.M. Raw (which airs Sundays at 1AM and compresses Raw down into 1 hour) is more important, it's based on your own personal opinion and is OR. As for your second comment, you could say the same thing about any wrestler. Have you even watched the show? His segment has helped further push many feuds (like Benjamin-Sheamus, Swagger-Christian, etc.) Being the lead authority figure in a notable indy promotion (don't try and distort facts and mislead readers by claiming it's just a WWE training facility. That's like calling Triple A baseball teams nothing more than "MLB training facilities".) helps out his notability case. Hell, I would argue that his role in FCW alone has been notable enough to warrant an article. TJ Spyke 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not even a question. He is a regular character on a weekly television show. The fact that this is even up for deletion is preposterous to me. --ECWAGuru (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Agree with TJ Spyke completely. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Oh boy. TJ covered matters very well. !! Justa Punk !! 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per TJ Spyke. Get Dumb 04:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the closing administrator takes these three comments lightly. TJ's rationale is wrong. Although he is a regular on the show, he's only been on it for a month or two, and in that time he hasn't done anything to establish notability. iMatthew ^talk at 12:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A month or two"...or four (according to the very article you are trying to have deleted). I hope the closing administrator takes notice that you are distorting the facts in pushing an absolutely unnecessary agenda. I also hope that the closing administrator sees that this allegedly "not notable" character has his own bio page on WWE's homepage Abraham Washington. Yes, all signed WWE superstars have their own bio page -- which is why all signed WWE superstars have their own Wiki page as well.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Having a WWE bio does not prove notability on our encyclopedia. iMatthew ^talk at 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Then please find a wrestler on the current WWE roster that does not have a Wiki page. He has a WWE bio page because he is on WWE television on a relatively regular basis. Just because you subjectively see ECW as a third-rate show, it doesn't change the fact that he is a regular character (not to mention his work in FCW). I'd like to also add that, in your attempt to persuade administrators to delete the article, you have used "Brian Jossie" in the various searches to establish notability. Yes, a Google search of "Brian Jossie" turns up 10,500 hits. But, for the record, a Google search of "Abraham Washington" (his ring name) turns up 207,000 hits. Perhaps this is more of an argument to redirect the article to his more well-known name of Abraham Washington. I've been arguing for quite awhile that Wiki is very inconsistent when it comes to establishing whether or not a main article should be a wrestler's real name or ring name. I'm sorry -- I just do not see the argument to delete him altogether.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)**[reply]
        Considering we've had two presidents named "Abraham" and "Washington" of course there would be 207,000 hits of pages with those names together. For an example as you asked, Ranjin Singh has a WWE bio but no article. iMatthew ^talk at 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not if you put "Abraham Washington" in quotes, which is what I did. And fair enough on finding that Ranjin Singh did not have an article. However, I'd absolutely argue that Washington's contributions (though for a shorter length of time) have been more notable than Singh.--ECWAGuru (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (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.