Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Hudson (announcer)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Lacks reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Hudson (announcer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Significant coverage of Hudson not found - just minor mentions. This has been unsourced for almost 3 years. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to say Keep since he was a major commentator (he was one of the 2 commentators on a weekly show that was watched by 6 million people every week plus a monthly PPV). Sources do need to be improved though. TJ Spyke 21:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The sources do not need to be improved - they need to be provided (there are none). I looked, and couldn't find any. If you can find some, TJ Spyke, then please do add them. However, unless some can be found, I still feel that this article needs to be deleted. If he truly is notable, I would expect there to be significant coverage in the media - and if the American media don't think he's worthy of coverage, why should Wikipedia? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I get around to it I may add these myself, but here is a fairly reliable source: [1]. TJ Spyke 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now is a good time to check that this is the same Scott Hudson that went by the name of "Hurricane" Scott Hudson in the old AWA. He also jobbed one time to Ted DiBiase in the WWF. Not much I know, but it would fill out the article if it cane be sourced. I know what I've just said is OR even though I know what I saw. !! Justa Punk !! 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I've just seen that someone else also mentioned it on the talk page a few years ago. !! Justa Punk !! 04:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to you finding some reliable sources for that and adding them to the article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of third-party sources. The only other significant coverage I found (besides the one linked above) was [2], which is probably not a reliable source by our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Scott Hudson is a notable professional wrestling personality, namely from his time with WCW during the Monday Night Wars. What's more, he also worked for the major promotions WWE and TNA, and he remains a pro wrestling announcer today. I've found two interviews with him and might incorporate their information into his article, with citations, if it's not deleted before I'm able to. If Jeremy Borash and SoCal Val are worthy enough for Wikipedia articles (and I don't object to that), as well as countless indie wrestlers that the average person's never even heard of, so is Scott Hudson for his contributions to one of the biggest eras in pro wrestling and his mainstream exposure on prime time cable TV. Cale (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (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.