Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Cohen (judoka)

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. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cohen (judoka)

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

Subject has not one source that descriptively verifies notability. All sources just briefly mention him or are about his more relevant father. Clearly fails coverage to constitute staying.ALongStay (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I got to ask ALongStay, "What is it that you dislike so much about CrazyAces489?" I believe this is your fourth AfD against them and I'm curious to know if you are going to continue with your quest in only selecting articles created by CrazyAces489 to AfD? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have glanced at your editing history MurderByDeadcopy and I see why you have asked such a pointless question. I came here solely to eliminate articles that do not deserve to be here, because they are non-notable and an insult to Wikipedians who strive for something meaningful. CrazyAces was brought to my attention in conversations with Garagepunk66, and I knew I found a trouble-user. To answer your question I ask this: Why bother waiting to slowly delete his non-notable articles over a drawn-out process when I can just wipe it clean in a few weeks? It is nothing personal, when I'm through with him I will move on to another editor. But please, if you want to create some "vendetta" I apparently have please spread it across AfDs you have little word in.ALongStay (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how to vote on this. I would think that multiple podium finishes at the U.S. championships would be enough, but at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Haley it was determined that two second place finishes weren't enough because there was a lack of significant coverage. This article has the same problem.Mdtemp (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declared Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Haley based on the two second place finishes which is enough to pass WP:MANOTE and believe that only the biggest deletionist would have closed that one as non-consensus which is exactly what happened. I rather despise vendetta AfD's which is what appears to be happening here. That's why I asked for the clarification above. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MANOTE.--MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - MurderByDeadcopy's vote is based on an essay on notability, not an actual policy. It has many times been said to be flawed, including in the AfD Mdtemp listed above. Users should ignore this vote.ALongStay (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ALongStay, I consider you the perfect editor for Wikipedia with your relentless pro-deletionist proclivity, but then my underlining reasoning on this is perhaps a tad nefarious! Unfortunately, I'm much to honest and decent of a person to actively engage in advancing the demise of this site. Cheers! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider striking this comment. Not only does this not WP:AGF but this type of backhanded comment is basically a personal attack or bullying as you would put it. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been following and bullying me (along with several other editors) for a while now. I get that you receive some sort of perversive enjoyment out of it, however, it isn't my thing so the fact that I interact with you, is all on you, because frankly I do not enjoy the pettiness of the situation. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While impressive I don't believe that he is notable enough to meet WP:GNG. The claims made in the article are vague, being an all american wrestler does not meet our guidelines nor does winning a sub-national event. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I hate to vote this way because I think a 4 time national medalist should be notable, but I looked at the notability criteria for other sports (like track & field) and it wouldn't be enough for those. The problem is that he never won a title or competed at the world championships and I didn't find the coverage to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because judo was not and still not a very popular event in the US, it is somewhat unfair to discount US judo wrestlers for their non-notability for lack of coverage and sources. But then again Richard Cohen did not make it to the Olympics like his father nor did he become an alternate like his brother... so as a "judoka", I agree, he is not notable. What he does get coverage in the media is for his business. In addition to running a judo club, weight training, and bunch of other athletics, Cohen dabbles in real-estate. His entrepreneurship is covered often in local newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the News-Sun. Maybe a "delete now and resurrect later" approach is suitable. --KogoroKano (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Just simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Part of me wants to say WP:IAR and "keep", since someone who medals at the national level four times should qualify as notable, but that's simply not in the guidelines. MANOTE simply suggests that the multiple medals at the nationals supports notability, but not that it is, by itself, enough to satisfy notability criteria. The lack of civility and AGF of certain editors is also disturbing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 26 January 2016 (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.