Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brimstone (wrestler) (4th nomination)

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 speedily deleted by User:Bgwhite per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (wrestler)

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

Previously deleted page with no improvements since last deletion. Unable to BLPPROD as page previously deleted. Amortias (T)(C) 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt No significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stills no notable. Also, we should protect the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt still fails WP:GNG. References are online forums and blogs. Also recommend salting Brimstone (professional wrestler), William M. Kucmierowski, William M Kucmierowski, William Kucmierowski and Will Kaye. starship.paint "YES !" 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally no reason it should be back. It has already been deleted because the sources were awful, and now it doesn't even have any apart from forums and blogs laughing at the fella. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why does this continue to exist???? It is bullshit! 4 nominations and it keeps coming back. Kill it with fire already. Not-notable and simply an advertisement.--WillC 04:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using fire and salt (but Delete). Fire cannot kill a dragon, and what is dead may never die. If we were dealing with The Yukon Lumberjacks, it'd be well and good. But this looks like a job for Glacier.

More scientifically, sulfur is an oxidizing agent which was long mined from salt domes using the Frasch process. While adding flame gets fire and brimstone, thawing him once he's frozen (with either fire or salt), may release catastrophic amounts of rotten egg smell. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Still a vanity article by a nobody. oknazevad (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Should have been G4ed. STATic message me! 19:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to be fair the first two AfDs failed, but that may be for reasons of sockpupettry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why did this article got resurrected in the first place. It's been nominated for deletion 3 times before that with the third time being a charm to delete the page. Get it off now, and make sure it's never brought back and nominated for deletion for the 5th time. Article creator should also be banned. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt and ban the creator. As soon as I saw that it was back yet again, I knew I had to remember my login so I could comment. This is quite possibly the most expansive, most staggering bullshit piece I've ever seen in my life, and it keeps coming back despite nobody but the article creator caring. It's time to put the bad penny to the torch. RaveBlack (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a joke, Kudos to Brimstone for managing to make himself known to the internet without ever having wrestled anywhere notable but that isn't enough to warrant this entry, especially now when it's only sourced from message board articles mocking the previous version of the page.Jonny2284 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a moot point with the AfD going the way it is, but I proposed the article for Speedy Deletion under CSD-G4. I'm 96.244.132.35 from the previous deletion discussion and found out about this AfD from a thread on GameFAQS - I know that policy-knowledgable IPs with no edits are highly suspect so this is my explanation. 184.13.28.3 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woah, I come back from vacation to see this again. Can't say I expected that. At least it didn't get deleted before I saw it in this incarnation. Missing this would've been like sleeping through the rapture. May as well salt this while we're at it. The user that created this isn't RingWars2007, that account is still stale, and they haven't made any edits since. I'll keep an eye out though.LM2000 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, ban creator. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Mere deletion apparently did not put an end to this campaign of hoax-vanity-vandalism. A blatant G4 candidate but perhaps the AfD should go to completion to see if there's consensus for salt and/or the banhammer. — Gwalla | Talk 04:34, 9 June 2014 (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.