Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valdas Pocevičius

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valdas Pocevičius

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with no fights for any top tier organization. LlamaAl (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination is solid against WP:NMMA. No top tier fights, let alone 3, as described at WP:MMATIER. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had 3 top tier fights in RINGS, the essay known as MMATIER does not specify unlike the Shooto portion, in 2002 thus making notable. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those fights were for Rings Lithuania, not for Fighting Network RINGS. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Sherdog it lists the RINGS Lithuania fights under Fighting Network Rings. Mkdw ^talk 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are Rings Lithuania, Rings Holland, but the top tier is RINGS. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many top ten ranked fighters fought under RINGS Holland, how is it not considered top tier? Type RINGS Holland into the search engine and you will see even Japanese fighters from the RINGS you concider top tier also coexisted under the RINGS Holland promotion, seems all are one in the same just in different countries. Sepulwiki (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - As WP:NMMA currently stands, all RINGS fights between 1995 and 2002 count as top-tier. It may well be narrowed down later, but that's for a different discussion at a different time. As it stands now, he passes. Luchuslu (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that despite User:Sepulwiki having a considerable number of edits, they !vote 100% keep for only MMA related articles with only a 32% rate of matching consensus. Mkdw ^talk 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly is that relevant? He's a registered user in good standing, so he gets a vote just like everyone else. Luchuslu (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's relevant for the discussion and for the closing admin. Sepulwiki's votes are never based on policies or guidelines. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI if you look a few lines above this, he made a ~~policy~~ argument for keep. Luchuslu (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? MMATIER? --LlamaAl (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was talking about WP:NMMA which is a guideline. Either way, you get my point. Luchuslu (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shows an indiscriminate trend and lack of comprehension about applying policies/guidelines to articles regardless of their state making their assessment habitually either wrong or 100% of the time influenced by ulterior motives than creating notable articles of MMA fighters. If they disagree with NMMA's outline, they need to take it to RFC and not use the AfD process as their battleground for disruption. Mkdw ^talk 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply feel it's unfair to make that stipulation in an AfD. From what I've noticed in his voting patern, outside of TUF fights, he's given policy reasons for all of his keep votes. That's more than can be said about many users in the past few year who just argue WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Luchuslu (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would not invalidate people also mentioning that they're habitually use WP:ATA. A weak argument from others in the past is not a precedent for future editors who indiscriminately keep. I'm not saying User:Sepulwiki is a bad editor. I'm saying in regards to AfD's, he hasn't shown a good record of applying guidelines and policies that follow the consensus, most likely due to the fact that he only argues 'keep' and not on a case-by-case basis otherwise there would be deletes in there. Mkdw ^talk 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the intention of WP:NMMA. The guidelines may not specifically call out that Rings Lithuania isn't the same as Fighting Network RINGS, but common sense dictates that it's not a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, look at the list of Rings events on Sherdog. If you want to have a discussion about changing WP:NMMA to only include Rings events that took place in Japan, we can do so on the talk page. But for now as WP:NMMA is listed, Rings Lithuania counts. Luchuslu (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LlamaAl's interpretation of the meaning of Rings in the WP:MMATIER essay. I don't think we have to procedurally keep a fighter just because there's a glitch in the tier list that hasn't been corrected yet. We should correct the glitch, but that doesn't mean this guy should automatically sneak through when he has no other fights for a legitimate top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep multiple fights in Shooto and Rings so he should pass WP:NMMA. Green Man 20 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Man 20 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Entity of the Void. Papaursa (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that at WP:MMANOT Shooto Lithuania fights do not count as top tier--only the original Shooto. I think common sense would indicate the same things for Rings. If so, then he has no top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Shooto Lithuania and Rings Lithuania is that Shooto considers its international branches as seperate leagues. Its events in Luthuania were part of Shooto Europe. Rings simply had events in Holland and Lithuania that were considered part of the main Rings organization but featured mostly local fighters. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Luchuslu (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a difference with Shooto Lithuania and Rings Lithuania--they both loaded up on local fighters and that's hardly convincing enough to show they're top tier. It really does the opposite.Mdtemp (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently consensus at the MMA project is that RINGS Lithuania is not top tier, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Since the article's only source is a link to his fight record at Sherdog, he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG either. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per change in WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2013 (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.