Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2021 December 18.
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. After discounting canvassed / COI comments, there doesn't appear to be much appetite to keep the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio McKee[edit]

[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:MMABIO criteria as he only has 2 fights in top tier promotions out of the required 3, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division by FightMatrix or Sherdog. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under the top tier promotions for he has only 1 fight under UFC and fails GNG for fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Claims that subject fails WP:MMABIO or WP:NMMA are FALSE as subject has fought in UFC, Bellator and Dream all of which are considered "top tier" according to WP:MMATIER. He also has notable references including multiple Sports Illustrated interviews here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16derria (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— 16derria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: @16derria: I suggest you to read WP:MMATIER, currently only UFC and Invictar are top tier promotion and Bellator was top tier from 2009 to 2015). McKee has only 1 fight under UFC and 1 fight under Bellator in 2019 - see here which during that time Bellator is not a top tier promotion. Secondly, the 2 sources are interview piece which means the source are not independent as the info is deviate form the subject himself for such the subject fails both NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but a more tempered one this time than the last AfD. First, I note that WP:MMANOT hedges the language on the three-top-tier-bout criterion: it's a criteria supporting notability. Second, from that page, "Reliable sourcing is the most important factor." While the SI interviews are interviews, the fact that SI gave that volume of coverage to him is significant. I see enough indicators to support notability for this subject, but I acknowledge that this is a good-faith nomination that raises good points about the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments User 16derria posted a message to users who voted to keep the article at a previous AfD. That seems like a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. For example, C.Fred voted about an hour after receiving the message from 16derria. WP:NMMA seems very clear on the topic of top tier fights--"Have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization". McKee does not meet that criteria. Interviews are not generally considered as meeting WP:GNG, especially when the focus is on McKee's son (which also involves WP:NOTINHERITED). My search also showed that Antonio McKee was never ranked in the top 10 by Sherdog or Fight Matrix. In other words, he fails all notability criteria for MMA fighters. I don't see coverage that meets WP:GNG as most, if not all of it, is routine sports reporting. If someone can show me three good examples that would meet WP:GNG I will happily vote to keep this article. It's important to note that the criteria for MMA fighter notability have changed, evolved, and been quantified since the previous AfD discussions. I am temporarily not voting to give those who want to keep the article a chance to show WP:GNG is met. Full disclosure: I voted to keep this article at the last AfD discussion, but right now I'm leaning delete. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Hi all, as a new editor this is my first time in one of these debates and I apologize if I have not gone about things correctly. I feel strongly this is page does not deserve deletion as the subject was a succesful collegiate athlete who was reported on by the LA Times, fought in UFC, Bellator, Dream and was a long-time champion in M-1. He is also now the head trainer at a gym producing world champions. Please take a look at these various links from a range of publications as evidence that I would hope proves WP:GNG is met: MMAjunkie/USAtoday, Muscle and Fitness, ESPN, Sherdog, Bleacher Report, LA Times/Glendale News Press and Yahoo. (User_talk:16derria) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still unconvinced that WP:GNG is met. The LA Times article is about him winning a state high school wrestling title, not collegiate. Several of the articles you listed were databases and two were promotional articles about he and his son fighting on the same card. Another one is an interview about him promoting a Bellator-UFC title match for his son. To me, these aren't enough, although others may disagree. I will say that there is no doubt the his son meets WP:NMMA, but again, notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Here are more sources regarding the subject and his career: Another Bleacher Report article, UFC, Orange County Register, Edmonton Sun, Bodylock MMA, Wrestling Edge and coverage of his reality show here. I feel this shows WP:GNG is met. (User_talk:16derria) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC. Move to draft until complete as WP:GNG. It's close to meet WP:NMMA. Have to work on more. AriaTess (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wealth of sources regarding the subject to me constitutes "significant coverage" and satisfies WP:GNG. User:Jesslesliee 19:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a more thorough analysis of sources for GNG by independent editors that weren't canvassed to come here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am also not convinced the sources provided add up to GNG, per the analysis of Papaursa. Interviews are not considered sufficient for notability purposes unless SIGCOV is given via independent commentary by the author. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2021 (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.