Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Onama

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. There is a fairly even split between Delete and Draftify. The CRYSTAL argument in favor of drafting does not make sense to me. If the sources appear, the page can be made into a draft. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Onama

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10, nor has he been ranked as high as top 10 by Fight Matrix, his highest is 111th ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His third UFC fight takes place today (July 9) I thought previously 3 UFC fights was sufficient for MMA fighter notability? There are tons of UFC fighter pages who have never been ranked in the top 10 of their weight classes. Keenlycurious (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 fight rule was changed along with other participation based criteria a couple months ago. Only fighters ranked in the top 10 by Sherdog or FightMatrix pass NMMA. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

then whomever was involved in deciding to change that rule needs to do a serious purge of MMA fighter pages....or perhaps revisit the rule...lots of valuable information going to be discarded Keenlycurious (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this user decided to show up and create chaos within the MMA pages. There's a lot of biased nominations by him. Obviously he's hurting the WPMMA more than helping it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don’t get it either he’s marked hundreds of articles for deletion when pretty much everyone within the MMA wikiproject has agreed to use the old rules.

I don’t get why these articles should be deleted either, for starters it’s not like Onama is 0-3 he’s a good prospect. Very strange. (FFCETT77 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Whether he meets NMMA is largely irrelevant here since GNG is required by NSPORT. You should be looking for SIGCOV in multiple sources if you want this article kept. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troll or vandal or just acting in bad faith? The actual WP:MMANOT guidelines are located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability yet user is linking WP:NMMA which is a redirect to a stub that has never been the landing point for Wiki's MMA notability guidelines. Rules were updated recently, three fights in UFC is still enforced, but Bellator was returned to Tier1 status (never should have lost it).

Comment Before refering to me as a "troll" or a "vandal", I suggest you actually learn the proper guidelines. WP:MMANOT is an outdated essay, it holds no value or weight at AFD. The proper guidelines are at WP:NMMA, which was updated in March to actually remove the three fight rule (not add it back as the IP editor falsely claims) see here. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bad faith argument stands, if not the troll comment. You've linked a discussion which barely references MMA notability whatsoever, and a vote passed months after WP:MMANOT underwent its own major overhaul. It appears the majority of those in the WP:NSPORTS realm have little to no interest in MMA itself, and few editors actually working to keep articles timely were aware your March vote even existed. The response on this page is fairly representative of that. I'm not interested in what amounts to a bunch of forum mods abusing their power. You've literally broken MMA wiki. Give yourself a golf clap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.183.92 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes no sense. You act as if I'm the one who made the post and single handedly changed the guidelines. I didn't. And if you refuse to accept the guidelines, that's your own fault. I'm a Wikipedia editor trying to follow policy, I'm not interested in you soapboxing about how I've "broken MMA wiki", despite the fact there was a consensus (consensus meaning multiple people voted to change them)to change such guidelines. I don't know what to say to this other than take it up with the people of NSPORT, it's their problem not mine. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't "MMA wiki". If you want to contest an extremely well-advertised and well-attended global consensus on sportsperson notability go ahead and do so at VP. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NMMA is part of, clearly states that all athletes must pass WP:GNG regardless of any appearances or how high they rank on some lists. So the question is, does Onama have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, after seeing his article I would say that he is more than a run-of-the-mill MMA fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background The notability guidelines for MMA fighters has always been discussed at WP:MMANOT and then approved at WP:NSPORT, until the tidal wave of change that removed most/all of the participation criteria at NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now, I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Fight reporting and reporting put out by the promoting organization don't provide the necessary coverage. Right now it looks like WP:TOOSOON to say he's WP notable, but if someone wants to work on the article in draft space I'd say that's reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify My opinion is to draftify if anything. I think he is close to being eligible as he is picking up wins and bouts frequently and soon will be fighting in the ranks. Deletion will just cause issues if he is to be reinstated HeinzMaster (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regarding meeting GNG, sources in the article are: 1. UFC stats: ✗ Fail, stats are not SIGCOV; 2. UFC article on Onama: ✗ Fail, UFC not independent; 3. Bloody Elbow user-contributed post: ✗ Fail, not RS; 3. MMAUK profile: Not sure. , could partially contribute if it's RS and not promo; 4. MMA DNA announcement blurb: ✗ Fail, user-submitted content, not SIGCOV; 5: Cageside Press fight recap: ✗ Fail, standard primary play-by-play account; 6: MMA Junkie: ✗ Fail, routine weigh-in report, not SIGCOV; 7: Cageside Press fight recap: ✗ Fail, see above (also not independent of other Cageside Press pieces); 8: BJPenn event recap: ✗ Fail, single sentence, not SIGCOV; 9: Eurosport routine fight announcement: ✗ Fail, not SIGCOV, and not independent from MMA DNA piece; Cageside Press withdrawal announcement: ✗ Fail, routine, not SIGCOV (and not independent of other CSP pieces); 10: Cageside Press fight announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; 11: MMA Junkie withdrawal announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; Cageside Press fight announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; Cageside Press fight recap: ✗ Fail, see above; Cageside Press fight announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; Sherdog stats: ✗ Fail, stats are not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to sources analysis by JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Lack of significant coverage at the moment, but could easily change in months or years if he continues to win and rise in his division, which would generate more quality sources. Therefore draftify to prevent loss of potentially valuable work. Pinguinn 🐧 09:26, 7 August 2022 (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.