Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Stambowsky (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus with WP:NPASR.

Since the article has been edited extensively during this AFD, consensus has become unclear and the later edits have convinced some editors (discounting the obvious SPA) that this subject meets GNG. With also the nominator agreeing that he would not have nominated the article in its current form, there is no consensus to delete at this point of time. SoWhy 07:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcio Stambowsky[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marcio Stambowsky (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)

Non-notable martial artist. Was deleted a few years ago, the recreator has repeatedly claimed that book sources exist but has refused to add any of them for months now. ★Trekker (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has really changed since the previous AfD discussion. There is a lack of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Seven of the nine citations point to the same BJJ Heroes page and that website doesn't meet the criteria for an reliable source. It's self-described as a website built for BBJ enthusiasts by a BJJ fan. The other two citations are not from independent sources. I also found no sources to show he ever competed at the world championships and there's nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These arguments will be addressed shortly.ToddLara729 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— ToddLara729 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

UPDATE: In my defense, I take editing seriously, and I haven't had a Wikipedia account for very long. I won't go around casually modifying other articles from day to day without investing myself in a project. I'm interested in Progressive topics, as well as martial arts and Japanese history and culture. I hope to make additional contributions. When I have time to put my mind to another interesting project, I will focus on that and offer more participation, albeit with a degree of apprehension. For now, I am here because my first project, which I believed to be notable, has been nominated for deletion.ToddLara729 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that for the last months.★Trekker (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best to establish notability within the next couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddLara729 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't have a "couple of days", also I think you will fail simply because the person is not notable. You have not edited the article ONCE since I last updated you, why havn't you added the sources and info already if it exists? Also, sign your comments.★Trekker (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Book reference added. ToddLara729 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah one, and it still doesn't change the problems with the article.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List the problems. Help me out, please. ToddLara729 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already listed here but the main one is that he simply doesn't seem to have done a single thing which would indicate notability. What awards has he won for example?★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rickson Gracie, who is widely referred to as the number one ranked BJJ fighter of all time almost by consensus, cited Stambowsky in one of the article references as the go-to technical role model when asked about the origins of the BJJ triangle choke during his lifetime. This high-level contribution to the BJJ core curriculum doesn't qualify as a single thing to indicate notability? In addition, with regard to awards, his medals are listed in the article and mentioned in the book, on web sites, and they are verifiable. Work with me, please. ToddLara729 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of his championships seem to be notable in themselves and therefore do not lend notability to him as a athlete. I'm also not sure if being referred to by someone else in the sense you describe grants notability either. The one book reference you cited is also still just one. I have worked with you a lot so far. I have been very lenient towards you in general, I gave tons of advice and I waited over a month to give you a chanse to improve the article before taking it to AFD. Do not try to make this about me having an agenda against you or the article subject. I will leave the rest up to other editors and the closing admin but so far the sources still appear to be minor to me. Good luck with fixing the article.★Trekker (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input and your patience. ToddLara729 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable martial artist and a significant contributor to the style and early evolution of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, as independently cited by Kroyler Gracie, Renzo Gracie, and MMA hall-of-famer Rickson Gracie, citations sourced. Additional supportive references added to the article in response to notability concerns, including a book reference. More to come. ToddLara729 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Highest ranking BJJ master in New England. Additional references added, including a newspaper source.ToddLara729 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two more newspaper citations added, New Haven Register articles ToddLara729 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has changed since the previous AfD discussion. Sources have been added. There is significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Two of the now sixteen citations point to a book, three point to newspaper articles, three point to verifiable and credible statements that attest to the subject's development of core ground-fighting tactics and his notable contribution to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu in general -- statements which were made by renowned martial artists. All citations are from independent sources. All of this, together with the listed and verifiable competition medals, show that the subject meets the notability criteria for martial artists. ToddLara729 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you can claim the sources are independent when so many of them are from or about family members. The article now has 16 references listed--5 are from the same BJJ Heroes page (not reliable), one is an article on his son (who uses the Gracie name), at least three of them are passing mentions in lists of names, at least four are articles by family members, the New Haven articles both say "Marcio Stambowsky, a member of the Gracie family" but notability is not inherited, and the Weston article is from a local paper which talks about when he teaches classes and gives the school's address and website. All together this does not show significant and independent coverage from reliable sources. In addition, rank has never been considered a gauge of ntoability for martial arts articles on WP and his successes have not come at the highest level of the sport. Papaursa (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are not mere 'family members' but rather the leadership establishment of Gracie Jiu Jitsu. Respectfully your doubts about the statements of these BJJ authorities don't seem to be rational in that sense. Also, every web site provided as a reference has been marginalized and summarily deemed "not credible" or "not independent" for some reason. I just don't see any objectivity there. Finally, it's worth noting that by the strict (perhaps too narrow) notability standards you've assigned to this article regarding success at the so-called highest level of the sport (a level today that did not exist back then), the very founders of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would be prime candidates for deletion. Check the many other standing Wikipedia articles about prominent BJJ figures, and you will clearly see that these rules have not been evenly applied. ToddLara729 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"reference has been marginalized and summarily deemed "not credible" or "not independent" for some reason."
That's because they don't appear to be. Also, never never never ever bring up "what about this other article?" as an argument, that's directly against what you're supposed to do in a deletion debate.★Trekker (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merely stating, "that's because they don't appear to be [credible]," doesn't appear to be a credible argument either. I am unfamiliar with the protocol regarding deletion debates, but I am making a good faith effort. I will only say this: when criteria are strictly applied in a way that seems selective or asymmetric, it raises legitimate questions about the fairness of the test. But since you have said that this is not considered an acceptable point of contention in this context, I won't repeat it. I'll just let my contribution stand on its own merit. ToddLara729 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one if you want to know a good criteria for what makes a good source it's generally having a credited, paid and professional writer and editor. Who exactly authored most of your sources? These are blatantly obvious things to anyone who understand what a reliable source is. Books are good because they usually require a known author, editorial oversight and a professional publisher. Not just some fan-website.★Trekker (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a 17th reference, from Gracie Magazine, which refers to Stambowsky as "one of the greatest Jiu-Jitsu competitors of the 1970’s and 80’s" before going on to give more details about his established reputation as a Jiu Jitsu player. There are hundreds of hits on Google from independent BJJ community references that all attest to his reputation using various, independent rhetorical nuances to corroborate and reconfirm his accomplishments. Should we dismiss all of this as a highly-coordinated, internet-wide conspiracy to fool Wikipedia? If I keep adding references, the list of citations will be longer than the article itself. At what point do we stop doubting the combined validity of all of these resources? "These ten are just fans. Those five are just small town journalists. Those two are just relatives. That book is just one book." Do we really need Anderson Cooper to co-sign before we can escape the abstract box of our notability rules to admit, if only with our common sense, that this is obviously a well-known, well-documented, notable martial artist? ToddLara729 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known, important, famous and popular are not the same as notability. Wikipedia collects information about notable subject. None of what you've stated solves the main issue, few if any of our sources are reliable or notable themselves. To have your own wikipedia article you need to a have been the subject of extensive coverage in multiple reliable objective sources. Relatives are not very objective, fans are not and amateur writers are not.★Trekker (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and embrace your definition of notability, but there are some gray areas that are open to debate. It seems that I have already demonstrated that Stambowsky has been the subject of "extensive coverage" via "multiple sources." Your question is whether those multiple varied sources — from newspapers to online magazines to BJJ web sites — are "reliable and objective." I think we tread into some very murky waters in the attempt to make snap judgements about these sources, and we need to be very careful about it. Wikipedia should not be elitist in its philosophy, and I don't think it aims to be. We need to be open to the credibility of small publications. Take, for example, the last source I cited, which is Gracie Magazine. You are presumably dismissing that source, along with the others, as perhaps a family-run, fan-based, or amateur site. In reality, Gracie Magazine is a 25 year old Brazilian publication — it is the original BJJ publication, comparable to the American magazines Black Belt and Inside Karate. The publication has been reliably following and reporting the facts on the same Jiu Jitsu and MMA competitors that you would consider 'notable' according to your own criteria — the good and the bad, both inside and outside of the Gracie system. In other words, this is a credible third-party publication, yet you are assuming that it is an amateur or small-potatoes publication, not sufficiently credible, and/or somehow a source of propaganda put out by relatives or fans. Why is this? Do you make the assumption simply because the name Gracie is used in reference to Gracie Jiu Jitsu? What makes you think that this isn't an objective third party, along with all the others — the newspaper reporters, the book author? I don't think we can assume that Gracie Magazine cannot be objective about BJJ any more than we can assume that Sports Illustrated cannot be objective about sports. By the same token, the idea that more mainstream publications or perhaps corporate publications are automatically more objective, accurate, detached and/or immune to sensationalism or bias may also be an illusion. So, we need to be careful. We need to see the whole picture with regard to this historic sports figure and this article. You are saying that all of my stacked sources — near and far, from the US to Brazil, with many more to come — are (one-by-one) not acceptable, and you draw this conclusion based on a series of assumptions about apparent objectivity and reliability at a glance. I disagree. The sources are an objective, unrelated series of third parties that are reliable — both independently and collectively. They meet the criteria. That's where we differ. ToddLara729 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not MY definition of notability, it's wikipedia's.★Trekker (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and thank you. One more point for the record: BJJ Heroes — another source that you dismissed — is an online publication with over a hundred thousand subscribers.ToddLara729 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Means little, even if they are paying subscribers.★Trekker (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paying subscribers would make them "paid and professional writers and editors". ToddLara729 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no, not even remotely, "a paying subscriber" is a consumer of the product and means that the site has paying customers. A professional writer is either employed or contracted by a company to work for them, same with the editor.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would be assuming that a publication with over a hundred thousand paid subscribers would be unlikely to have a professional writer or editor, and that's not a logical assumption.ToddLara729 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I assume that? Are they really paid subscriber? Where does that say? Why aren't there a writer credited in any of your sources if they exist?★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't assume anything, and neither should I. You suggested, hypothetically, that it would make no difference if the 100,000 subscribers that I mentioned were paying subscribers. I responded that it should make a difference because it would then satisfy your "paid professional writer" criteria. I did this mostly to demonstrate, respectfully, that no matter what sources I cite, you will ultimately doubt their credibility, even when your previously-stated criteria is satisfied. Consensus will be impossible if you do this. ToddLara729 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm incredibly tired of this. The truth is simply that you're completely and probably purposely misinterpreting whatever it is I'm saying becuse you don't like the fact that near none of the sources you have seem to be good enough to prove this persons notability. I ask again, if the site has paid editors and writters, why are none of them credited? Again a subscriber is not a professional writter, a subscriber pays the company for a service, a writer gets payed by the company for their service.
Do you realize that those kinds of things are generaly needed to be concidered a reliable source and that if too few of your sources reach those conditions this person will have their article deleted no matter how many times you try to counter the arguments? The admin closing this debate will not care if you've made thousands of comments or "voted" how many times in different sections.
To be a reliable source you need to have a stable precence, esablished staff and a good reputation, that's why you need professional writers. Having 1000000000 or how many other subscribers means nothing, wether they are paying or not, which I'm not sure they are here in this case. (I can't even find where it says that they have that many subscribers.) Again, if the site in question has payed writers, why are they not credited in the source?
I'm not questioning some of your sources "just becuse", I don't think this is fun, I'm doing it becuse it seems awfully suspisious that even half of them would qualify as good sources from wikipedias point of view.★Trekker (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am as tired of this as you are, but I'm not going to sit back and let my contribution be deleted without a long, hard debate if I truly believe in the subject and the credibility of the sources. I have better things to do than to purposely misinterpret your comments, as you put it. As for 'voting' in different sections, I continued my discussion under a new heading because the long string of cumulatively indented paragraphs finally made your comments impossible to read on my cellular device. You're quite skeptical and suspicious of ulterior motives. Perhaps it serves you and Wikipedia well in certain contexts, but in this case it's beyond the pale. I'll continue to make my arguments ad nauseam. I'm looking for you to bend an inch or two, and I'd like to do the same, so that we can reach consensus. I believe that your assessment of the validity of the sources as well as your interpretation of Wikipedia's doctrine on reliable independent sources is, in this case, somewhat misguided. (To make that assertion is my right.) I have provided the best sources that I can up to this point, in good faith. I will continue to work on the problem.ToddLara729 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am investigating the background of Gracie Mag to provide you with the names of their editor, but meawhile, take a look at this link. This is a hard copy of Gracie Mag that sells at newsstands for USD$8.50. Does this not appear to be a credible publication with a professional editorial staff?ToddLara729 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/GRACIEMAG-Gracie-Jiu-Jitsu-Magazine-March-2014-203-Anderson-Silva-Gabi-Gar-/132197553023?hash=item1ec796937f%3Ag%3Ahc0AAOSwKytZHvUn&_trkparms=pageci%253Ae6d39af4-4643-11e7-ada4-74dbd1801221%257Cparentrq%253A604d7fbf15c0a861cae68eb3ffffca9d%257Ciid%253A5
Here, at long last, is a list of the professional editorial staff at Gracie Magazine. http://www.graciemag.com/en/staff/ I have gone to great lengths to satisfy your criteria. Are you now willing to meet me half way and accept, if with some trepidation, at least this source, if not the others?ToddLara729 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much ado has been made about the lack of credibility, particularly of the web sources cited in the article. They have been summarily dismissed, one-by-one, as everything from 'friends and family' to 'fan pages.' These assertions are unfair in that they use language that marginalizes solid sources with a broad audience and a respectable degree of independent credibility. The BJJ Heroes web site, for example, which has been shrugged off as a fan page, has paid advertisers and over 100,000 followers online. Gracie Mag is well known and existed as a printed, expertly illustrated, paid subscription magazine with almost 400,000 subscribers in both America and Brazil. They have utilized paid, professional sports writers and editors. In 2010, Gracie Mag published the following: "Macarrão was one of the greatest Jiu-Jitsu competitors of the 1970’s and 80’s, famous for his notorious leg game, which his friends called the 'guillotine guard' – anyone to get caught in it was a dead duck. Either they got swept or tapped out, as remembered to this day." This is a powerful statement from a reliable third-party source. It is a source that has been cited in the article. It makes assertions that support notability. We cannot simply dismiss, collectively, this and a host of other sources, ranging from newspapers to pages in a book to renowned martial arts leaders, based on negative assumptions and blanket skepticism.ToddLara729 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying down here since you're having a hard time with reading this.
Neither I nor wikipedia is missguided in our guidelines. You either accept the guidelines about reliable sources or you can create a discussion with the foundation to have them changed, which can't really be done here. I was mainly talking about the BJJ Heroes page which you have repeatedly claimed has professional writer, but still can't name them, which makes me question wather you really have any idea what you're talking about or if you've really read wikipedia guidlines.
The gracie mag "article" which you've cited here is literally less than a hundred words, and was apperantly written by some guy named "xdevs", are you kidding me?
I've looked trought all of the refs you have and out of all of them the only one which seems to be even remotly acceptable is thewestonforum.com article and the books. I seriously doubt that's going to be enough.★Trekker (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC),[reply]
I haven't yet looked into BJJ Heroes payroll. Not once did I claim that BJJ Heroes staff were paid writers. I only countered your hypothetical suggestion that their 100,000 followers would be irrelevant EVEN IF they turned out to be paying subscribers. (I.e., 100,000 paying subscribers would presumably create a financial incentive to maintain paid editors and writers, but I was only replying to your hypothetical statement.) I did say that Gracie Mag has a paid, professional editorial staff, and that's what I was referring to. You totally dismissed the links I sent you regarding the Gracie Mag's credibility, which you originally expressed concern about, and instead you're now questioning the length of the article and the author's nom de plume. I'll try to establish the writer's identity. Let's not bicker. If you're going to make your case, I think you can do so without being adversarial or telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't think you want to discourage new or inexperienced users from making contributions, do you?ToddLara729 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have identified the writer who uses the alias XDEVS. He is a Brazilian, and his name is Felipe Pavao. He is a professional freelance writer and WordPress developer who writes independent articles for Gracie Magazine. He can be accessed through this URL: https://codeable.io/developers/felipe-pavao/. I used this link to reach out to one of his colleagues by private message to be absolutely certain and to reconfirm his identity. Please feel free to verify all of it. ToddLara729 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it would be useful, and if it would help us to move toward consensus, I will find a way to add Felipe Pavao's name to the GracieMAG source reference along with a contact link.ToddLara729 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of subscribers ARE irrelevant. Lots of sites with paying customers do not have professional and established writers and editors. Again, if there is a professional writer to many of these sources, why have you not credited a single one in this article and why do they seem to not be credited in the sources? I've asked this many times before, but am yet to receive an awnser.
Gracie Mag's general credibility is utterly freaking irrelevant as well when the SPECIFIC source you're using does not seem to have a professional writer and is less than a hundred words long. Not particularly great quality control on that one it seems for a source which you claim is reliable. Also, yes lenght matters, that's what EXTENSIVE coverge usualy is, like I said before, there is a need for extensive coverage in multiple unbiased reliable sources.
Why the do I have to explain this too you again? Go back and read trought wikipedia guidlines agian please and maybe you will accept that these things are not negotiable and actually really clear.★Trekker (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: That link doesn't work for me and it still seems incredibly dubious that a writer that doesn't go by his real name is worth much of anything in this debate when the work in question is still increadibly short anyway and should be dismised. Also, I'm not going to verify something for you, the burden is on you to prove stuff.★Trekker (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an offering of compromise, I would like to invite you to remove from the article any sources or claims that you feel are wholly unreliable or unsubstantiated, pending additional sources that rise to consensus. Please edit, reduce or sanitize the article to your satisfaction in exchange for a NEUTRAL or KEEP.ToddLara729 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my best to find common ground with you, establish sources of notability, and give you what you require. I don't think I can do any more.ToddLara729 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just let the record show that I was the one offering concessions while you didn't budge an inch, using terms like 'non-negotiable' and 'the burden is on you' in what should have been a quest for the highly-coveted Wikipedia consensus.ToddLara729 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you is a guideline form wikipeida. Not something I made up. You need to prove stuff, not expect people to do the job for you.
The problem is not that the sources are unreliable in the sense that they are likely wrong and should immediately be removed but that they in no way lend themselves to be used as credit for proving notability. Me removing them won't help a thing. Instead of debating me in a battle you won't win you can scan the web and books for more sources. You have two books and one decent websource right now, maybe just look for more. You kept claiming before that you found way more book sources, add them if you want to.
There is no common ground to reach. Just so you know: I'm not the closing admin, I'm not going to be the one who deletes this article if it is deleted. It's him/her you need to impress and convince with sources. Trying to find common ground with me is useless. I'm simply trying to explain to you and make you understand why these sources probably won't be enough to get the article to be kept. I don't want to scare you away from editing wikipedia but you need to accept that not everything you make will be kept. I don't think there is a single long-time editor who hasn't had one of their articles deleted. Don't get to attached to them, it's not personal. I once made an article which has extensive sources from places like Canoe and CBC but that was still put up for deletion, (it was no consensus in the end.)★Trekker (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I thank you for a spirited and exhaustive debate. I will make one last attempt to research and add another round of sources, per your recommendation, but I will end the discussion here no matter what, as I have argued my case from every possible angle already. Your advice is much appreciated. Cheers. ToddLara729 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ToddLara729, please do not repeatedly continue to vote to keep the article. You are entitled to comment as much as you want, but are only allowed one vote. I have struck your votes after the first one. The problem is that your sources simply don't meet the criteria established under WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". At least, I don't think they meet that standard. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize the bold heading at the start of a new thread represented a vote. Thanks for the format corrections. Identifying which sources should be deemed reliable and independent is neither a simple nor a straightforward task. I believe my sources are largely independent of the subject of Stambowsky, even if a number of them have a connection to the martial arts. There is no proximal benefit in making false claims or elevating the accomplishments of one particular Jui Jitsu player over another. The stated purpose of independence is "to protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses," but "independence does not imply even-handedness." In other words, BJJ enthusiasts and publications can still be independent and unbiased, as long as there is no personal benefit in endorsing or promoting the subject. I promised that I would curb my comments after making one last attempt to make this project notable and worth saving. I've done my best. Thank you for participating. ToddLara729 (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Additional magazine reference added, authored by "award-winning newspaper reporter Kyle Nagel," which calls Stambowsky "one of the Famous Five." Book reference added — Stambowsky is included in a catalog of "100 of the Best Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Fighters of All Time" by Alex Trost. Links to Maccabiah Games added — the third largest international, multi-nation sporting even in the world (after Olympics and Pan American) in which Stambowsky brought home a bronze medal for Brazil. Reference work continues. ToddLara729 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update Sources investigated, reference section overhauled entirely, professional editors and writers cited by name, additional references added to establish and reinforce the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ToddLara729 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In closing: On February 13, 2017, as recorded in the edit history of the article, a tentative ruling on the notability of Stambowsky was made by a Wikipedia administrator. When this article was first nominated for speedy deletion, proposed by the same contributors who have made their cases above, an administrator by the name of Basalisk overruled the speedy deletion proposal on the grounds that "claims in the article would confer notability per WP:SPORTSPERSON if confirmed." (See the administrator's comment in article revision history.) These claims have now been reinforced by a series of expanded and credible third-party references, a number of whom are "professional writers." In addition to the original claims, which have already been acknowledged as notable if confirmed, I have also been able to establish in a more precise manner that this individual has indeed "competed at the highest level of the sport" in a "world championship" international contest of top athletes from 37 countries — in fact the third largest international sporting event after the Olympic and Pan American games. This individual is also, according to independent sources, one of the so-called "Famous Five" renowned Rolls Gracie masters, all notable by definition for their contributions to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. All four of the others in the group have their own Wikipedia articles, which are linked to the Rolls Gracie article under the "notable students" section. There is therefore yet another Wikipedia notability precedent implied in that inclusion. In effect, while I concede that notability is neither inherited nor conferred by rank alone, it has been effectively documented on Wikipedia as well as via multiple third-party sources that the "Famous Five" are unique and notable figures in their own right. The unique notability of Stambowsky is chronicled and duly referenced in the article. I am therefore compelled to highlight and defend the administrator's prior conclusion. Marcio Stambowsky is a notable person by Wikipedia's standards. Please keep the article.ToddLara729 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ToddLara729 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss edits after the first two delete !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the original points made by the other participants in this debate, and as a newcomer I value their guidance and have attempted to follow their advice to improve the article. As noted in the relisting comment above, this article was edited substantially after the original deletion arguments ended. New content and highly detailed references were added in order to address the specific concerns of the two deletion !voters and to build consensus. Entries previously acknowledged by an administrator (see In Closing above) as notability-conferring statements, per WP:SPORTSPERSON, have been expanded and confirmed by independent, published, non-trivial secondary sources. The deletion !voters have graciously chosen not to dispute the updated material or the expanded reference table after the AfD relisting, despite having the opportunity to address these changes. After extensive post-discussion editing, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." Per WP:CLOSEAFD, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I respectfully submit that notability has been adequately conferred per WP:GNG, that consensus has been attained per the above standards and per WP:SILENCE, and that this article should be a Speedy Keep. ToddLara729 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only presumption concerning silence is that the opinion has not changed - but just to be clear the reams of text has not changed my opinion.PRehse (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408talk 02:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References are too insubstantial, and he generally isn't the prime area of interest to the article. Needs better references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not need to be the main subject of a sources content for it to be "in-depth" coverage.★Trekker (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a subject failing to meet GNG. Reliability and extent of sources are both of concern here. I've also struck the article creator's third or fourth !vote a few comments above, as everyone customarily gets one and one only of these per discussion, no matter how unreasonably long they get. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject rises to GNG, the statements in the article confer notability as recognized by an administrator in the edit history, and the quality of the sources seems self-evident at this point. With the exception of Treker, who has taken the time to voice a number of constructive concerns that were at least partly addressed by the edits that followed, the deletion !votes on the whole have been brief, dismissive, and slightly gratuitous at times. Much time and effort has been committed to the development of this article and the references. Comparatively little time and effort has been devoted, for the most part, to supporting the merits of deletion. Suggest invoking NOCONSENSUS to Speedily Close AfD arguments and continue this discussions via talk, lest we create more unreasonably long reams of text under this heading.ToddLara729 (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with it and your assessment of the sources provided (the comment was made that the claims, if supported by reliable sources, would demonstrate notability, and I don't subscribe to the view that the sources provided are sufficiently reliable to qualify in that regard). I can't speak for any other user expressing an opinion, but I generally don't try to write an essay when expressing my opinion in an AfD where a brief rationale will do. If that makes my response "brief, dismissive, and slightly gratuitous at times", then so be it. Being that the burden of proof is generally on the people arguing for the subject's notability, I'd also submit that the amount of time devoted "to supporting the merits of deletion", while irrelevant (I've considered the article, the sources and the discussion here, that's more than enough), is roughly in line with what is to be expected. Lastly, you've been advised on at least two separate occasions regarding it being a bad idea to keep bolding things (you're allowed to bold the word "keep" as you did, and "comment" as you have), so I'd suggest that you stop doing so. In the interests of not creating more text, allow me to point out here that I don't intend to keep responding. You've made your case - over and over again - and I for one don't agree with it. Disheartening experience though it may be, them's the breaks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will be sure to avoid the use of bold print from now on. You have conceded that notability would be conferred, but for the unreliability of the sources. As a great deal of effort was made to include independent writers, editors, authors and experts in the reference list in order to meet the recommended guidelines, on what do you base your summary judgment of the unreliability of the sources, and what type of improvements would assuage your doubts? ToddLara729 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above discussions regarding sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ToddLara729, I'm sorry, it's clear to me that you have put lots of work into this article and have tried really hard and that's admirable but you need to leave the rest of the discussion up to other people. You can't keep saying stuff like "speedy keep" or "NO.CONSENSUS" when the that has not been reached and no admin has concluded that that is the case. Again, like I said before the only thing you can do it look for more refs and improve the article.★Trekker (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir. As a newcomer, I'm unsure of how much argument is allowed in AfD, whether it is better to allow challenges to go unanswered, or how often a contributor should reply when outnumbered in a debate. I do think this process is relatively transparent; so, regardless of my style, there is no capacity to mislead with bold print or caps lock, or to suggest that administrators have ruled when they have not. I am simply emphasizing my position, my logic, my understanding of policy, and my voice. However, since the length and style of my comments is apparently unwelcome, and since I am outnumbered in that regard, I will respectfully step back from this debate in the interest of decorum and allow the WP veterans to hash it out. With regard to improving the article and references, I believe you have been monitoring my consistent efforts since the nomination for deletion was first made. I cannot devote much more of my time to this process. Unless others contribute in the next few days, this article will be retained or deleted in its present form.ToddLara729 (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I'm glad that you seem to be accommodating to your fellow editors and respect their additions to the debate (while you disagree with them). I also want to say that I do not think the article in it's current state is poor, had it been like this from the begining I would not have put it up for deletion, but like I said before I'm not the one who decides this now.★Trekker (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My apologies for the long delay in attending to this matter.ToddLara729 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clears WP:SPORTSPERSON, as far as I can see. So long as the referenced individual is notable within his/her field it is in the best interest of the community to include that person. The evidence supports the fact that Stambowsky is notable. The article is in good shape now and meets wikipedia quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emz3l (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Emz3l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep — Y'know, I think Emz3l says it pretty well. While the sourcing skirts the edge of the minimum necessary to satisfy GNG, I concur exactly with this analysis: "So long as the referenced individual is notable within his/her field it is in the best interest of the community to include that person. The evidence supports the fact that Stambowsky is notable. The article is in good shape now and meets wikipedia quality standards." Carrite (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current references in the article are significant and substantial enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcio_Stambowsky_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138052517"