Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Roseberry

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 delete. I'm giving less weight to arguments from non-established users or based on SNGs that are not relevant to the subject. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Roseberry[edit]

John Roseberry (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)

Judoka with no significant coverage to meet GNG who also fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:MANOTE. No evidence he ever placed at an open national championship (military events don't count).Mdtemp (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If your nomination is based on him not placing in a national championships, you are mistaken as an article in the page explicity states he placed in a national championships. [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a great guy, but his "claims to fame" of don't really get him past notability. Brief mentions in notable publications don't do it. The system he founded doesn't pass MANOTE and histories written by his students to enhance their own marketability don't help. In the end, the subject lack significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentHe was the founder of his own style. He has had whole articles written about him in various magazines including the Daily Nebraskan. [2] He was the sport director of the year for the cornhusker state games. [3] He was an Olympic Alternate for the 1964 Olympic Games. He is the first non-Asian to have received black belts in both Judo and Karate. [4] He is a runner up in the US Nationals in Judo. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE There are no indications of his notability. There are only three sentences verified that could be possibly lead to any level of notability. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment a pioneer of okinawan martial arts in america does make him notable. [5] CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I wish him the best in his endeavors, but as far as the encyclopedia goes, he doesn't make it past [[WP:BARE|the bare minimum requirements of being encyclopaedic-ally notable. Longevitydude (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentA founder of one style (karate), an active competitor in another style (Judo), and a pioneer in Karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Strong keep as a founder of a style of karate, a pioneer of okinawan karate in the United States, an Olympic Alternate in Judo, an active competitor in Judo. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founding a style doesn't get you past MANOTE, when the style itself doesn't pass MANOTE. Merely existing doesn't make it notable.
  • Keep The article suffers from source bombardment but there are at least a couple seemingly reliable sources that cover the subject (WP:GNG). See the Daily Nebraskan link and the google books link that CrazyAces489 provided. Do the sources provide a strong case for the subject's notability? I'll admit that they don't and my gut tells me this article is a "Delete", but I don't know much about karate and the rules are the rules and notability is to be presumed according to WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There are only trivial mentions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jerod here are three whole and independent articles dedicated to him. [6], [7], you can read the OCR text for the article here [8]. This here is bigger than a passing mention but not a whole article [9] . CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please stop posting the same links over and over. Coverage by the local paper doesn't do that much for me. When it's part of a series profiling different people, even less so. The local paper probably writes about a local high school QB too, but that doesn't make him notable either. A mention in a non-notable book written by a non-notable author (your last source) also does nothing for me. Lastly, the article you say is more than a passing mention is exactly what a passing mention is. The article is about the festival. Mentioning that Roseberry has a local school and put on a demo is a passing mention. The article isn't about him and says very little about him, aside from the fact that he owns a school and can shout commands. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift36, Notability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, Ramsey Nouah, a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. I consider your hostile response WP:BITEy. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since the response wasn't to you, whether if not you find it "bitey" is irrelevant. Second, BITE is "don't bite the newcomers". Since neither you, nor the editor I responded to can play the new editor card, that's a pointless reference to make. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An Olympic alternate makes him notable and the "local" paper provides verification. You have already posted your vote. Have a nice day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's why you don't see me voting again! I can' however, comment on your comments as often as I want. How on earth can you think it's ok for you to address multiple editors, but I can't address you? You seriously need to learn how the process works. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all the best on your endeavors. Have a wonderful day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS is just a guide. He passes WP:GNG and that is what counts. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee thanks. In 8 years of editing here, I had no clue that NSPORTS was a guideline. Of course GNG is what counts and he isn't passing it. Thanks for needlessly wikilinking me to a policy that I'm well acquainted with. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Everyone learns something everyday. I learn something new all the time. I am also here to help others. He is passing GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was giving you enough credit to presume that you'd recognize that was sarcasm. Now I'm not so sure that I should have been that generous. Since you don't bother to try to comply with RS and have demonstrated you're not really that adept at separating a passing mention from significant coverage, I'm not going to put a lot of stock in your GNG proclamation. Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to build up wikipedia in a peaceful and nice manner. I don't see the point in using sarcasm as people might be offended by it. I am not the only one who disagrees with you. That is why we have a consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what else people may find offensive? Acting like they haven't managed to figure out the basics in 8 years. What else could people find offensive? Creating tons of questionable articles, spammed with non-reliable sources and telling people that your role is to create and improving them is for someone else to do. You are correct, you're not alone. There is another editor who even concedes that his gut tells him this articles is a delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing.*Keep:- There are multiple third party reliable sources that established the subject notability as a martial artists, apart from the Reliable sources already present in the article. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#1 which says that an artist is notable if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.This source confirmed him as an important figure in addition to the sources already cited in the article. Also he is a founder of a recognized institution founder of a recognized institution. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that first source isn't a reliable source. Second, ARTIST doesn't apply here. MANOTE is for martial artists. Third, the style he founded isn't notable under MANOTE, so founding it doesn't help. "Widely noted" would take more than a couple of entries in books nobody bought. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your interpretation of WP:RS? How are those books that discussed the subject in details not reliable sources? WP:MANOTE is an alternative to WP:GNG. Subject doesn't have to meet WP:MANOTE if WP:GNG is met, again motability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, Ramsey Nouah, a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware of MANOTE and it's relationship to GNG. My mention if it was your claim that ARTIST somehow applied here. It doesn't. If we're going to use a topic specific guideline (one that takes into account the common specifics of the topic), then we should use the correct one, not some poorly applied, unrelated one. What is a RS? Well the policy you unnecessarily linked answers that for us. One of the biggest would be a reputation for editorial oversight. Clearly the freeserver hosted personal website wouldn't pass. I invited you to take that site to RSN and see how many people agree with you about the reliability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about only one source here? I mean multiple sources established the subject notability. I'm not talking about subject own website here. Several sources pointed out in the article and even with a quick google search are third-party sources, that are independent of the subject. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my initial response to you, I said "that first source isn't a reliable source". You offered hathagojuryukaratedo.freeservers.com as evidence of his importance. That site is not a RS. Not even close. I'd love to see you take that to RSN. I've addressed other sources in responses to others or at the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that all we have is a relatively small cluster of individual schools under a particular name not a style which is recognized in the karate world as significant.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentthe organization is notable. he is also a US Olympic Alternate. he won multiple judo championships. he is the subject of numerous independent articles. he easily passes GNG. Stay with your opinion Wikicology. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As PRehse correctly pointed out, the style itself is fairly small and non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per CrazyAces489, and especially the part about the article subject being a founder of a style of karate. I also agree with Wikic¤l¤gy when he stated "There are multiple third party reliable sources that established the subject notability as a martial artists, apart from the Reliable sources already present in the article. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#1 which says that an artist is notable if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.This source confirmed him as an important figure in addition to the sources already cited in the article. Also he is a founder of a recognized institution [10]. Article subject clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST#1, and has passed over the threshold of notability WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you folks from the article creation project keep citing ARTIST? This guy isn't an artist. Then you cut and paste the same unreliable source as "evidence" of meeting a standard that the guy isn't subject to. That source isn't even close to passing RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WordSeventeen I agree with you. You are right there is enough GNG in this article. Niteshift36 maybe they see something you don't see! CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you use the incorrect guideline, I'm sure you do see something different. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was avoiding this but some of the comments are drawing me in. The relevant guidelines are WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. I suppose WP:ATHLETE could be considered but I have no idea why we have two editors bringing up WP:ARTIST. The subject does not meet either WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE. He neither competed at the highest level (for Judo that would be the World Championships or the Olympics) nor did he found a significant style of karate. At most it is a cluster of schools. High rank, titles and memberships in soke councils (or similar self-congratulating organizations) have, and for good reason, never been considered as a base for notability. This brings us to WP:GNG and I don't think, when you actually look at the sources listed is being met. The best one was the Lincoln article but in reality that is nothing more than a local interest piece (in my opinion) and is pretty borderline. The freeserver page is in no way a RS and I don't see how it is even part of the discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment He meets GNG, and is a strong well known martial artist. The problem with MANOTE is that it is biased against martial arts that isn't in the Olympics or has a world championships. Only two martial arts compete in the Olympics - Judo and Taekwondo! What happens with martial arts in Aikido? What defines a "world championship" ? What about ninjitsu? What about Yoga? There is an inherent problem with MANOTE as many martial arts do NOT compete! There are many RS that are used. It proves that he was an Olympic Alternate which shows notability and the first person to earn a black belt in judo and karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is much more to MANOTE than world championships. If Roseberry's style was notable (which MANOTE provides guidelines for), then this might be a different conversation. Since Yoga isn't a martial art, I'll ask....what about it? What does that have to do with anything? Neither MANOTE or ATHLETE use being an Olympic alternate as an indicator of notability. ATHLETE says competed in Olympics. The alternate not only doesn't compete unless something happens, they often don't even make the trip to the games. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CrazyAces489, I'm getting the impression that you don't quite know the point behind subordinate notability criteria such as MANOTE. It's not to create some fuzzy concept of "fairness" or "balance." It's to reflect whether people or institutions are likely to pass the GNG. The reason that Olympians are listed in NSPORTS is that someone who competes in the Olympics is very likely to generate press significant enough to meet the GNG. The reason that Olympic alternates aren't listed is that they're quite unlikely by that fact alone to do so. The reason that UFC practitioners are favored is that organizations such as the UFC generate a great deal of press activity, and that amateur aikido and "ninjitsu" practitioners do not. The reason why MANOTE is so stringent about a high bar of proof for a "notable" style or school is that -- as I'm sure you don't need being told if you know anything at all about martial arts -- there's an enormous level of puffery in the field, and there are a lot of so-called "bullshido" peddlers out there who proclaim themselves 10th Dan Magenta Belt High Grandmasters of "Watashi-wa-petenshida Okithenwan Kung-Fu Karate" for the purposes of raking in marks for their local dojos.

    The way we distinguish the bullshido peddlers from the real guys is through multiple reliable sources. If we're to swallow this guy's claim to have "created a style," a casual namedrop in the foreword of an obscure book or a fluff piece in the local newspaper won't suffice. We need a half-dozen good, reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (that being, in fact, what the GNG requires), they need not to be all local (as WP:GEOSCOPE indicates), and they need to discuss the subject in "significant detail" -- as has been said elsewhere on Wikipedia, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If those don't exist? Well, I have no reason to believe that Roseberry isn't a good teacher and a hell of a swell fellow. He just doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Aikido? What about Ninjitsu? Do you see the bias? Some martial arts have a competitive aspect, some do not. He qualifies under WP:Artist and GNG! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't see the non-existant bias. Where did you get this notion that only arts with a world championship are notable or that the only way to become notable is to win one? None of us have said that. And I could careless is he passes "ARTIST", because that isn't applicable here. He's not an artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is always an acceptable standard, but there's no indication he meets that. Since he is a judoka, I don't see the validity of your argument regarding certain martial arts being at a disadvantage. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is more known for Karate. Please read the biography. He does qualify via GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea why people are using the notability criteria for artists, unless they don't know the difference between an "artist" and a "martial artist". The coverage from the Lincoln paper is local color and I see nothing that shows the significant coverage from independent reliable sources that are necessary to meet WP:GNG. Since he never competed at the Olympics or world championships there's nothing to show he meets WP:ATHLETE. There's also no indication that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. As far as some of the specific claims go, I was not able to find any listing of U.S. judo national championship results that mention Roseberry and the claim he was an alternate for the 1964 U.S. Olympic team lacks supporting evidence (and even if it was true it wouldn't be sufficient to show notability). In fact, Black Belt magazine's reporting of the trials [11] specifically mentions all of the winners and second place finishers saying they would be training together to prep for the 1964 Olympics and Roseberry is not mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is more than a Judo practitioner. He is a founder of a style of karate and an Aikido practitioner. That link does not show third place finishers. The article given states he was an Olympic alternate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated; being an "alternate" olympian does not confer notability. That's like "almost" made the team - he could "almost" have the notability, but not quite. Same can be said for third place finishers - the link does not show them, because they are not notable enough. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alternate shows a portion of his accolades. He founded a notable martial art, and is the subject of many independent articles. This includes these [12] [13] [14] as well as the ones below. Showing that it will pass GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By that standard, I should immediately start an article on my daughter for participating in Irish Dance, and her appearances in local theater; she has more local TV and newspaper coverage than evidenced here. Heck, I should consider an article for myself, if local puff pieces on community events are to be used to confer encyclopedic notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of local "almost famous" people. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goo point ScrapIron. Local papers (and TV) have to fill space with local interest and local flavor stories. That is the reason they exist. Otherwise, we'd all use USA Today. They write interest pieces about a guy opening a new business, a paragraph about someone getting promoted from salesman manager to VP of a local car dealership or someone doing something interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rule of thumb that goes a long way - does the coverage exceed my own. As I am not notable, it it doesn't (insert suitable Latin sounding phrase here).Peter Rehse (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Let's examine, for example, the links CrazyAces have posted. The first and fifth sources (from the same source) are fluff blog pieces of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. The second is a mere mention of the subject's name in a list, and therefore can't be used to sustain the notability of the subject. The third reports, credulously, false claims that open grave doubts about it meeting the fact-checking requirement of the GNG and WP:IRS. The fourth is a casual one-sentence mention of the sort the GNG explicitly debars. The sixth is a casual mention. The seventh is the exact same citation as the third; err?

    As far as being an aikido practitioner goes, that in of itself isn't notable, and anyone connected with martial arts should know that. As far as "creating a style" goes, there are hundreds of guys around the world who claim to have "created a style," at least for the purposes of declaring themselves 10th dan rainbow belt grandmasters and peddling videos ... my old teacher, a simple black belt in a legit style, sold out and repackaged himself as a similar bullshido peddler. Perhaps Roseberry isn't in that camp: in which case, there are multiple reliable sources saying so. Where are they, please? Ravenswing 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You raise a good point about this "he founded a style" claim. MANOTE provides specific guidance in helping a style be recognized as notable. This style hasn't attained that notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidance, not rule of law. It is noted that he (1) was a strong competitor in one style, (2) founded a completely different style, and (3) earned high ranks in 3 styles. He is notable by all three not a single thing. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on ScrapIronIV, the individual has a number of independent articles written about him. One article cover the state of Nebraska. The articles in a general sense span a few decades. The first person to have earned a Blackbelt in both Karate and Judo. That puts everything over the top in terms of notability. 143.85.76.26 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused ScrapIronIV argues for a delete and I must say the claim to be the first person to earn a black belt in Judo and Karate can not be right - American maybe?.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the article doesn't make the claim that he's the first person. And the claim that he's the first American comes from a local newspaper. I have great doubt that the source of that claim was anything other than Roseberry himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you your information from about their research claims. Keep article as it provides me proof of his notability. I am impressed as being the first non oriental black belt in karate and judo. 172.56.23.118 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)— 172.56.23.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Notability isn't established by being impressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first "in something is notable in itself". CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific, if it was true, but it's bullshit. Robert Trias -- born and raised in Arizona -- was a black belt in karate seventy years ago. Other karate pioneers like Ed Parker, John Keenan, Walter Todd and Cecil Patterson were over sixty years ago. Todd and other judo pioneers such as Phil Porter, James Bregman, Karl Geis, Donn Draeger and George Harris were black belts in the 40s and early 50s. Anyone with a credible knowledge of martial arts history, or else willing to do ten minutes worth of research, ought to have known that. An examination of some of the other claims in the article lead to webpages with broken links, sources that don't actually say what the statements claim, or completely unsourced statements altogether. This is looking more and more like a dollop of truth drowned by a pitcher-full of bullshido puffery. Ravenswing 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please identify one American who had a black belt in Judo and Karate BEFORE John Roseberry? If not you are making an unsourced statement. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the claim is not the first to have a blackbelt in judo OR karate but the first American with a blackbelt in both. I still have trouble believing that without a better source but just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I know of at least one American who had a black belt in both before Roseberry had one in any discipline: Ed Parker, who was a judo black belt in 1949 and a karate black belt in 1953. Phil Porter had his judo black belt in 1954 and his karate black belt in 1956. Ravenswing 19:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dynamic athlete who won multiple black belt events and earned near the highest rank in every art he trained in. A legend in Nebraska and recognized by many other independent sources. Clearly meets Gng 208.54.87.248 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)— 208.54.87.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: I'm sorry, I will have struck my initial votes to Delete per Ravenswing. Ips, I remind you that what we do here is not an election and coming here to vote multiple times does not make a difference. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interesting coincidence that both of the IP editors who popped in late in the game with only a few edits each have the same provider in T-Mobile. Complete coincidence I'm sure. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: Ravenswing comments haven't been proven to be true. There is no documented American to have a black belt in Judo and Karate before John Roseberry. There is documented articles that state that Ravenswing was the first black belt in Judo and Karate which is the article "Gentle Roseberry Judo Ace." [15] The article John Roseberry does not have broken links or unsourced statements. Almost every line in the article is sourced. Sources have been removed, so anything that was previously unsourced had a source before. [16] CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're just not paying attention then, and you obviously haven't bothered following any of the names I linked. Robert Trias, for one, was documented as receiving his first black belt in July of 1943, when Roseberry wasn't yet out of elementary school. Ravenswing 19:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, I feel if this article was written better, it would have a case to remain on. From what I read though, some of the "facts" are clearly in dispute, so perhaps if more qualifying references were available, then possibly the subject in question is notable. Note, CrazyAces489 that you are not making a case by arguing with every comment, and possibly using IP editors that you control to support your opinion. Try actually improving the article and maybe people will change their minds, but it may just be the subject is not notable and you need to except it. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 8:50, 15 April 2015

@TheGracefulSlick and Niteshift36: Watch your accusations! I have no issue bringing this forth to an AN/I! Past that, The Graceful Slick haven't stated the same thing to Niteshift whom has been spoken to about commenting on every response. [17]. Lastly in being helpful, TGS, the word you want to use is accept not except. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that your reading comprehension failed you. I called it an interesting coincidence. Since your entire defense about "I didn't actually call anyone a racist" hinges on the fact that you only did it by inference, you can't turn around and consider this any differently. Feel free to take it to ANI. That doesn't worry me in the least. I know what I just said. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any accusations, as I said possibly you were doing so. Being so defensive is unnecessary. If you want to go to AN/I be my guest as I have done nothing wrong. Thanks for the grammar update, simple mistakes like that can be annoying. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 9:15, 15 April 2015

  • CA correcting someone else's grammar may be the funniest thing I'll read all day. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with CrazyAces489, initially almost every statement in the article was sourced with WP:RS Editors have over the course of this AFD have removed sources and citations here and there. As for TheGracefulSlick's comment above "CrazyAces489 that you are not making a case by arguing with every comment, and possibly using IP editors that you control to support your opinion." is a baseless allegation with no proof given. That sort of statement with no proof offered has no place in an AFD, and borders on a personal attack. If you have evidence of such an impropriety of sock or meat puppetry the proper place to discuss that would be at WP:SPI. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was part of the issue.....they weren't reliable sources. Blogs from non-notables, websites run by karate schools and nonsense like that aren't reliable sources. If you think some random dude's blog is a reliable source, then I submit that you need a refresher course. So your initial assertion is false. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proof was given when the user commented on every response, as for the second portion of the statement, it was a mere possibility. By taking it for more than it is, you only make yourself suspicious. And I enjoy reading your opinion, but it is still just an opinion that is outweighed by the fact this article doesn't meet notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 9:57, 15 April 2015

Comment Well you both, The Graceful Slick and Nightshift are incorrect. I did nothing suspicious, and that is really funny that you "claim' that while you two editors were mustering up over at [18], and then come back over to this AFD to WP:TAGTEAM. I already voted, and I am willing to let the chips fall where they may. Have a good day everyone! Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing I've said here was incorrect. I've been involved with this article and this AfD from the start. Graceful Slick, who I've never spoken to before today (go ahead, search away) has been here for a day and made a couple of comments. Take your lame conspiracy theory and your equally lame tag team application elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, my comment must have struck a nerve, the gutting of the articles references has just begun. It is a shame when editors take their frustrations out on an article and thereby Wikipedia itself. That is really too bad, and harmful to the encyclopedia. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bother to look, you'll see that I've done extensive editing of sources on that article from the start. Don't take credit for anything. All I did clean up your attempt to add non-RS sources to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CA, agreeing with another editor does not make it tag-teaming--any more that you and Word17 are "tag-teaming". The only source for the claim he was first is Roseberry talking to a local reporter and that's not an independent reliable source. There's also no reliable sources given for the national runner-up claim. If someone believes sockpuppets are involved, they should take it to SPI. FWIW, there is an ongoing SPI for CrazyAces if you're serious about the sockpuppet claim.Mdtemp (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdtemp: Why don't you direct your conversation to WordSeventeen. Although I agree with him I didn't make any reference to tag-teaming. There is also a reliable source given for national runner up. Take a look in the article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You agree with the tag teaming allegation? An editor I've never spoken to before (and still haven't responded to) participates here and then posts a comment on my talk page. Suddenly that's "tag teaming" to you. But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars is somehow not pretty much the same thing? Thanks for the laugh. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We did no tag-teaming together, I was just complimenting him for dealing with this headache. Just because we (along with just about everyone else, except some "unregistered users") agree on the same thing does not mean we were up to anything. I am refraining from any more comments on this page as the article will surely be deleted. CrazyAces do not take anything personally from my opinions on the article, by attacking already confirmed to be notable articles. We can work together and hopefully no more of your articles will need to be deleted. If not, please refrain from communicating with me as I only work with users who want to positively work with each other.TheGracefulSlick (User talk:TheGracefulSlick)

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/John_Roseberry&oldid=1069219891"