Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Haley

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 January 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Haley[edit]

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

Little to nothing in the search engines on this individual. Being trained by someone slightly notable does not help as notability is not inherited.ALongStay (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and only mentioned in one book. Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this passes notability. Added info.

Was a champion of a second tier MMA organization.
Was ranked in the top 10 of a weight class or top pound for pound list.
Fought at least two (2) professional fights for top tier MMA organizations

Thus it passes WP:NSPORTS. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used MMA as a guideline since this is related to martial arts. Sorry for being unclear about that. Women have fewer sports organizations with less opportunities for them so sometimes info is a bit sparse. Two US national championships silver medals is significant. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use WP:MANOTE, which would apply to judo? Clearly she doesn't pass MMA guidelines since she was never a pro MMA fighter. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MurderByDeadcopy care to give an actually reason as to why the article is notable? Your vote, to be honest, does not amount to much if it is just a baseless statement.ALongStay (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has nothing to do with MMA and hence the statements listed by User:MurderByDeadcopy are false.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep or userfy Easily Passes WP:MANOTE as it states "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" She won two silver medals in a significant national tournament " US NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS CHICAGO" and " US NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS ST. LOUIS MO" [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CrazyAces489 as this appears to pass WP:MANOTE. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 08:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERX and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Simply stating it meets x policy or per this person arguments are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 02:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MANOTE is merely an essay on notability. I do not see any arguments in the keep camp that this individual meets WP:SIGCOV. Without demonstrating this individual does, there is no policy based argument -- only essay based arguments which do not supersede notability policy. Mkdw ^talk 00:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could use expansion and clean-up (not deletion) per WP:ATD policy. Hmlarson (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability essays should provide guidance on minimum criteria which a person would likely need to achieve in order to attract significant coverage of their accomplishments. I've criticized MANOTE before for being overly generous in this regard; my experience with these discussions has been that MANOTE does not reflect the availability of coverage, it reflects what members of WikiProject Martial Arts have decided should be their own criteria for inclusion, and that's not how Wikipedia works. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information, we reflect what reliable sources determine are notable subjects. Here's what this means here: this person clearly meets MANOTE criteria: although poorly sourced to a site with user-submitted content, there are independent sources (i.e. [2]) which state clearly that she did compete and medal in national-level competition, as CrazyAces489 pointed out. But so what? Where is the significant coverage of her win? Haley is mentioned in a bullet point in that reference, as are everyone else who medalled in that tournament, names like Frances Tomlinson, Skip Watkins, Ann Maria Waddell, Delores Brodie, Maureen Braziel and Mary Theriot, a few I chose randomly from the same source. Braziel is a pioneer of the sport and has significant coverage of her career beyond this; the others are the same as Haley: bullet point mentions in tournament results, and no substantive content at all, not even in Black Belt, ostensibly the martial arts magazine from the time. So, is a repeated medalist in a significant event likely to meet GNG? It seems not. tl;dr: WP:MANOTE is flawed; Haley and others of her caliber fail WP:GNG. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 4 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.