Deletion of Peter Stilsbury (2nd nomination)

Comment: Nothing has changed. 18 months is still brief for a tenure in an elite level. Agree with Niteshift about  and wrestling could be interpreted as visual artistry so  shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Also agree with GetDumb re the TV exposure and what he did outside of the fed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: What is going on here? Since when does being a glorified jobber for 18 months make someone notable? I'll bet the wins over Volkoff and Sheik were the result of a DQ. That's happened before and the beneficiaries don't have articles! How about Brad Perry? He beat Dino Bravo on TV but he doesn't have an article. What about the guy who beat Jake Roberts by DQ when he hit his eye (during the Martel feud) and Roberts went nuts? This guy is not notable! It doesn't matter how much you prove he was there; He was a JOKE! And that's not . It's a failing of . And he's not an athlete either. He's a full scale entertainer, and a bad one at that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:N)

Comment: The first AfD caused me to ask about notability standards at the Professional Wrestling project here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Question_about_notability. Even among devotees of wrestling, the question is not clear about whether they should be looked at under  or not. Theirs is an athletic performance, but not a ''competition'', since the outcome is pre-determined
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE)

Comment: Meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: meets  and , regardless of the never-ending debate over ATHLETE and ENT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)