Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (3rd 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 delete. A pat on the back to Mark for carefully considering the decision and being willing to bring it back for some more input, but with more input (I considered input from both discussions, since this is essentially a relist), I believe the question of whether or not we have sufficient sourcing to write an article has been sufficiently addressed, and the answer I see consensus for is "Not at this time." Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Iain Martell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (2nd nomination) as delete in that I felt there was a narrow consensus to delete. After further thought and discussion, I think it was probably closer to a "No Consensus". So I've restored the page and relisted it to gain a clearer consensus. A specific issue in the last Afd that hindered consensus was whether the coverage that he's received apart from MMA is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG, so please comment on that. I am neutral. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete It seems like he's not quite notable either as a fighter or as a celebrity. As a fighter, he fails WP:MMANOT, since he doesn't have any fights for a top tier promotion. As a celebrity, most of the links provided aren't really about him, he's just mentioned in a couple sentences in an article about someone else. I don't think he quite passes WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am a bit surprised by this - with the exception of the primary author the consensus of the last discussion was delete. The subject is not yet notable as a fighter so the case seems to be does a couple appearances on a game/dating show confer enough added notability to warrant an article. As mentioned above the links provided are really not about him and being mentioned in passing does not make one notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep page passes WP:GNG. Martell is notable for being a television personality as well as being a successful mixed martial artist in one of the UK's top promotions. As I have stated to the closing admin for the 2nd nomination, the three users who voted delete did so on baseless ground, which I broke down for the admin and after careful thought he realised that to delete the page was irrational, hence he reinstated the page providing that it goes back through an AfD under a new listing. And from I see from the votes so ar, I am seeing the same type of votes made in this one as in the last. MMANOT has been proven to be flawed, partially because it does state at the top of the page that the guideline can be used to interpreted notability, it doesn't say anything about being the de facto of notability for MMA related pages. Also I have also stated to the admin that the guideline failed to show other notable promotion such as the Super Fight League (India's biggest promotion), One Fighting Championship (the biggest and fastest growing promotion in Asia), the International Fight League (covered by mainstream sources and competed with the UFC at its height) or Invicta Fighting Championships (biggest woman's MMA promotion in North America) so for the guideline to not include UCMMA shouldn't affect notability at all. And I must point out that everyone is making it sound like that the only other sources out there on him outside his MMA is more related to another person. The fact is that it only covers a small part of his celebrity, as there as plenty of independent sources out there on him relating to TV appearances as well, and even with the two articles relating to Katie Price, it isn't like he is mentioned in just one line on just one paragraph from a poor source, he is mentioned on multiple articles for The Sun, the UK's biggest tabloid paper, and each article went into detail about, including a possible crush on Martell and Alex Reid getting confrontational with Martell and his gym members at one point. Hardly un-relating articles and overall I am still awaiting a good case for deletion. Pound4Pound (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully agree that MMANOT is flawed, especially when it comes to event notability, but the inclusion criteria for fighters is pretty clear and seems to be working pretty well. I agree that UCMMA is notable, and maybe should be added to the list of second tier organizations, but it's not a top tier organization along the lines of UFC or Strikeforce. Even if it's comparable to BAMMA, it's still second tier, and five fights for them still doesn't pass the guideline. As far as the sources, The Sun is the strongest source, but it's also the source where he gets the least coverage. The stories are about Katie Price, and Iain Martell is only mentioned in passing at the end. The source that really is about him, the Evening News 24 source, is local news, and wouldn't normally be enough to count as significant coverage. Even after looking at the sources again, I still don't think he quite passes GNG, sorry... CaSJer (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole of MMANOT is flawed, thats my point, you can add in UCMMA to the second tier promotions as well as the other four promotions I used as an example, however it still wouldn't put a dent into the many problems with the guideline. And as such using it as a policy that this page fails to meet, and hence delete on that basis, would just be wrong. The closing admin to the last AfD agreed with me on that point and because of that MMANOT should not be used to justify a reason to delete this page. As far as the sources go, I believe them to be quite strong, as some are from major sources, and as for the ones that people say hardly cover him, it would be like saying adding those sources and information to Alex Reid's page, particularly mentioning his issues with Martell, and trying to delete that bit of information on more than one occasion off his page just because the sources doesn't cover him in the majority. That is what I am trying to say. I think should try to remember that he has appeared on TV on more than one occasion, the first was for a hit dating game show on one of the top TV channels in the UK, ITV. The other was for a comedy show that was on the BBC, the biggest in the UK, and the episode that he appeared drew in more than 4 million people watching. Add in the fact he fights for a big promotion that is one Sky Sports, he is clearly notable. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully agree that MMANOT is flawed, especially when it comes to event notability, but the inclusion criteria for fighters is pretty clear and seems to be working pretty well. I agree that UCMMA is notable, and maybe should be added to the list of second tier organizations, but it's not a top tier organization along the lines of UFC or Strikeforce. Even if it's comparable to BAMMA, it's still second tier, and five fights for them still doesn't pass the guideline. As far as the sources, The Sun is the strongest source, but it's also the source where he gets the least coverage. The stories are about Katie Price, and Iain Martell is only mentioned in passing at the end. The source that really is about him, the Evening News 24 source, is local news, and wouldn't normally be enough to count as significant coverage. Even after looking at the sources again, I still don't think he quite passes GNG, sorry... CaSJer (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also if anyone is interested in reading my discussion with Mark Arsten (closing admin to 2nd nomination) to read my points in detail, read here - User talk:Mark Arsten#Iain Martell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pound4Pound (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Like another user above, I was confused why this process was considered close; I thought the closing statement offering to userfy was a reasonable compromise. I myself only relisted the procedure, making no assertion. In this procedure, I'll assert the subject has been in the MMA business a very short time, has an admirable but very brief record. I see little in sources outside of routine sports and entertainment coverage. The Sun coverage is bare mention. The rest are blogs. Only the Norwich source stands the test of RS, and IMHO, we don't have enough upon which to base a BLP. I have zero problem with userfication so the page can be improved, but I don't see a way this could be returned to mainspace without improvement. BusterD (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read my statement to the closing admin on his talk page, you'd see why he changed his mind. I pointed out that the only three delete votes were made without any real detail, any proper explanation, or in some cases without any seriousness as to why they reckon the page wasn't notable (one user's mocking at the end of their vote pretty much told use how they felt). But as will keep on repeating until the end of this AfD if necessary, The closing admin AGREED with me when I brought up these points to him after the last AfD was closed, hence why were are back with another AfD. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note - the closing admin agreed to re-open the AfD in order to gain a more clear consensus - he didn't agree that the article should be kept. The decision to re-open discussion shouldn't sway voters one way or the other. CaSJer (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but in order to agree to do something you would have to believe in it to an extent, and in the case where you decide on one thing, and then changed your mind based off what one person said, then a sense of agreeing with a person is in place. I am not trying to sway voters, just stating facts where they are needed, I am seeing too many votes being made that have not been thought through, researched into the topic in question and/or even not tried to take it serious so all I am doing is stating the fact where they are needed is all. Not trying to cause issues. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "...delete votes were made without any real detail, any proper explanation, or in some cases without any seriousness as to why they reckon the page wasn't notable (one user's mocking at the end of their vote pretty much told use how they felt)." I apologize if you felt I was mocking you, Mr Martell, or the AfD process - I was only making a silly joke about a name; I can see that this is a topic that you are passionate about, and a dumb joke may have been in poor taste on my part. While my statement about Mohammed Ali was not serious, I do have serious reservations about Martell's notability: as I stated in my comment at the previous AfD, I don't believe that his passing mention in The Sun and celebrity gossip articles (this seems to be your main evidence) in which he is only talked about in the context of how he relates to other celebrities like Katie Price don't add to the evidence of his notability. Again, my apologies. Zujua (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but in order to agree to do something you would have to believe in it to an extent, and in the case where you decide on one thing, and then changed your mind based off what one person said, then a sense of agreeing with a person is in place. I am not trying to sway voters, just stating facts where they are needed, I am seeing too many votes being made that have not been thought through, researched into the topic in question and/or even not tried to take it serious so all I am doing is stating the fact where they are needed is all. Not trying to cause issues. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note - the closing admin agreed to re-open the AfD in order to gain a more clear consensus - he didn't agree that the article should be kept. The decision to re-open discussion shouldn't sway voters one way or the other. CaSJer (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read my statement to the closing admin on his talk page, you'd see why he changed his mind. I pointed out that the only three delete votes were made without any real detail, any proper explanation, or in some cases without any seriousness as to why they reckon the page wasn't notable (one user's mocking at the end of their vote pretty much told use how they felt). But as will keep on repeating until the end of this AfD if necessary, The closing admin AGREED with me when I brought up these points to him after the last AfD was closed, hence why were are back with another AfD. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I agree with CaSJer's comments--the subject certainly does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and I don't think he meets GNG. Jakejr (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updates made to the page added in additional source for his appearance on John Bishop's Britain, adding in information about being a judge for a major swimwear competition last year WITH source, improved wording on Mixed Martial Arts career with additional source for upcoming fight. I urge those who made votes to please read over page again and decide whether to change your vote or keep them as they are base on your opinion after reading them. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. My analysis of sources remains unchanged. Another unchanged: User:Pound4Pound seems to be the only participant in any of these AfDs who is asserting keep for this subject. BusterD (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more satisfy that a page that is notable was deleted based on good arguments from the side to delete than that based entirely on poor arguments to delete. I must admit that better arguments are being made in this AfD to delete than in the last one, however I feel it is still not enough and that is why I am adamant that the result of this AfD should be keep. If it does get deleted though, I will still have the page on my sandbox so at a later date when he rises higher in the MMA rankings and gets into bigger and bigger promotions as well as any other TV work, then I can always reinstate the page and along with the added information relating to him to clarify notability. This is not me saying I have given on this AfD, this is me saying that if this AfD goes the opposite way I want it to go, then I can always keep it on my space, regularly update it and when the time comes where I feel he is even bigger than now, then I will state my case for the closing admin to this one and show him the changes since the last one. However, this is happen IF this results to a delete, and I will attempt to change opinions by showing them the facts, encourage them to read through the page more carefully and get an overall better opinion of the page before making their votes. Last thing I want is another AfD for this page in place simply because people who vote from here on are making uncoordinated votes. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd contend trying to convince editors in this discussion isn't an effective use of your time. Because the subject engages in battling, this doesn't mean that battleground behavior or campaigning in this discussion process is a preferred strategy. If you want to sway participants in AfD, I believe the maximum effectiveness lies in improving the page. Sources like blogs, IMDB, or Sherdog have limited utility; I don't consider any of those as reliable. The best types of sources for sports figures, IMHO, are sports magazines and sports sections from notable newspapers. Sandboxing the page prior to deletion is much like userfying, and is a reasonable strategy in cases like this when the sources available haven't quite reached the critical mass required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing my point though, I am not convincing people to vote keep, I am convincing the vote properly, I have already stated that I am okay with an overall delete consensus ONLY if the votes were properly done through researching, careful reading and seriousness. I have been improving the page as I just added in sources before I came back to this AfD. So if people want to check them out, please go ahead. And if it does get deleted what difference does it make whether I got a copy of it in my sandbox or not? At least there I can make improvements over time so that if there comes a time where he reaches to the top of the MMA world (such as the UFC) and/or makes it big in the TV world (hosts his own TV show on ITV/BBC) then it saves starting over from scratch like I had to do for this page due a previous user making such a poor version the first time, but it would of saved me some time to gain access to what was already on the original page (i.e. MMA record, boxes, sources etc.). So regardless of where this AfD goes I will keep it updated through my sandbox. Pound4Pound (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd contend trying to convince editors in this discussion isn't an effective use of your time. Because the subject engages in battling, this doesn't mean that battleground behavior or campaigning in this discussion process is a preferred strategy. If you want to sway participants in AfD, I believe the maximum effectiveness lies in improving the page. Sources like blogs, IMDB, or Sherdog have limited utility; I don't consider any of those as reliable. The best types of sources for sports figures, IMHO, are sports magazines and sports sections from notable newspapers. Sandboxing the page prior to deletion is much like userfying, and is a reasonable strategy in cases like this when the sources available haven't quite reached the critical mass required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more satisfy that a page that is notable was deleted based on good arguments from the side to delete than that based entirely on poor arguments to delete. I must admit that better arguments are being made in this AfD to delete than in the last one, however I feel it is still not enough and that is why I am adamant that the result of this AfD should be keep. If it does get deleted though, I will still have the page on my sandbox so at a later date when he rises higher in the MMA rankings and gets into bigger and bigger promotions as well as any other TV work, then I can always reinstate the page and along with the added information relating to him to clarify notability. This is not me saying I have given on this AfD, this is me saying that if this AfD goes the opposite way I want it to go, then I can always keep it on my space, regularly update it and when the time comes where I feel he is even bigger than now, then I will state my case for the closing admin to this one and show him the changes since the last one. However, this is happen IF this results to a delete, and I will attempt to change opinions by showing them the facts, encourage them to read through the page more carefully and get an overall better opinion of the page before making their votes. Last thing I want is another AfD for this page in place simply because people who vote from here on are making uncoordinated votes. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The article has been improved since the last discussion, but I still don't think notability has been sufficiently shown. Mdtemp (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Doesn't seem to be a celebrity.Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTABILITY TheStrikeΣagle 03:53, 14 August 2012 (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.