Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Samman

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've viewed the keep comments. After repeated requests, it seems valid sources have not been forwarded to confirm notability. Currently deleting with no prejudice to an early recreation if and only if multiple, reliable sources are cited when the article is being recreated Wifione Message 09:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Samman[edit]

Josh Samman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined. Subject is a non-notable MMA fighter and article is practically unsourced. Only one fight with a notable organization therefore fails WP:MMANOT, also appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As we all know, Bellator is an established organization because with its TV deal with MTV2. The question is if XFC should be considered a notable organization. Considering it has a television deal with the channel HDNet and is home to mega stars such as [[Jamie Varner]}, i think it is fair to call it a major promotion. Therefore, Samman has 2 fights in major promotions, as well as a victory over a recently well known fighter, Chris Cope. Im not sure why the legitimacy of sherdog as a source is being questioned, when one of Sammans opponents also shares his only source with sharedog.com yet does not face deletion. Mikey Gomez To be honest, he is one of the only major athletes to come from Tallahassee, he is going to continue his fight career in big places, and deserves to have a wikipedia to show his accomplishments. Thecrow1313 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One fight for a major organization fails to meet WP:MMANOT nad being mentioned at sherdog.com fails to meet WP:GNG. Claiming he's one of the few major athletes to come from Tallahassee doesn't meet any notability criteria noR can editors override consensus to set their own criteria for notable MMA organizations. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So if a Television deal and having signed notable fighters doesn't make you a notable organization, what does? I have a voice, and I plan on speaking my opinion. I only gave facts, which is his MMA record found on sherdog. I did not include questionable websites as they are not facts. If you would like more websites cited, i would gladly include them.
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MMA. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a listing of "significant coverage by independent sources" since I was unable to find much? Can you also explain how the individual passed WP:MMANOT? You cited WP:JNN before in a different AfD today, practice what you preach. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As pointed out above, we can verify WP:V in reliable sources WP:RS that he fought against notable WP:GNG fighters and for a notable promotion. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to list the sources. The only source cited in the article is the fighter's record at Sherdog.com. If the subject passes WP:GNG there should be "significant coverage by independent sources" which means you can list a bunch of sources. If that is true, do so. Also, you fail to specifically state how this fighter passes Wikipedia:MMANOT#Fighters; to me this fighter has few fights with notable organizations (only 1 or 2) which is a criteria supporting deletion. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sherdog is a reliable source for MMA organziations. Look, just to be franks, what's it to you if this article exists? We know it is not a hoax or that it is a personal attack on that guy, so at worst it provides information on a fighter of some notability. Removing it from Wikipedia achieves what exactly? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you are unable to find other sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG? That would mean the subject of the article is not really notable and thus fails Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding what topics deserve articles. It doesn't affect me if this article stays. It affects Wikipedia's status of being a source of notable information. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Thecrow1313. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He fails WP:GNG. But per Thecrow1313, he has 3 fights in top-tier, which means he technically passes WP:MMANOT. Unfortunately, WP:MMANOT is an essay, and there are questions about sherdog.com. Still, in its borderline state, I'm inclined to not be hasty with deletion - give it time, and tag it with {{refimprove}} for maintenance-inclined editors, but don't delete it yet. It was only created a few days ago, after all - let's give it time to improve rather than deleting something that may be incomplete. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure where the previous editor got his number, but this fighter has 1 fight for a top tier organization (see WP:MMANOT for a list). There's also no significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since i created the article i know my view point is slightly skewed. I would like to bring to the table that this fighter does have some local coverage as well as multimedia coverage:

Tallahassee coverage: http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20120222/SPORTS/202220332/Four-Tallahassee-fighters-get-ready-MMA-event-Atlanta Television coverage: http://www.wctv.tv/insidethegame/headlines/38167309.html A student made documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Fo84P1tCY I understand that this fighter does not meet the guidelines that makes this website operate, but i ask wikipedia not be deleted yet. Since he is an active fighter, he will have big fights with big promotions in 2012. It would be a shame for this article to be deleted and a week later a new fight be announced in bellator/ufc/xfc. I don't want to make this personal, so I agree, you are right. He does not completely meet the criteria you ask, but he does not completely fail it either. Give it time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrow1313 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at WP:CRYSTALBALL. Claiming he will become notable because he will have major fights in the future is not a valid argument, especially when he needs several of them to meet WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets void that part of my argument. What doesn't change is his significant media coverage outside of MMA websites. Do you have a comment on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrow1313 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He stills lacks significant independent reliable coverage. Youtube fails, as does the local paper talking about a bunch of local boys going up the road to Atlanta to fight, and so does a mention that he's become a personal trainer. Astudent0 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The Youtube video is significant second hand documentary coverage. Just because the video file is hosted on youtube does not mean all of its material is void. 2)A state capital's news paper is not local. Nor is a major city's newspaper that has a wide circulation. I guess that means New York Times should never be cited because it is only local to New York City. And if you continue to read the article, it states about his recent fight. 3) Television coverage is a reliable source
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MMAIS due to significant independent coverage. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [1] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Due to the fact that if any fighter has fought for a top tier promotion, they are instantly notable, which means that this guy is definitely notable (before I get any fanboys commenting on this vote saying I'm wrong to vote, let me point out that this has been the case for a long time, so to argue with me is to argue with everyone who has every defended guys such as Rolles Gracie Jr., who has only fought for the UFC once, and he has been deemed notable on many occasions)

I assume this comment is from Bigzmma since he's made up this rule at other AfD discussions--contrary to WP:MMANOT. FYI-- Rolles Gracie, Jr. has never been up for AfD so his notability has never been decided by consensus. Mdtemp (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support this claim. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see significant independent coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and his one top tier fight fails WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by a variety of users on this post can be found at the many other places he stuck this comment. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Samman&oldid=1071364471"