Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keigo Kunihara (2nd nomination)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keigo Kunihara[edit]

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

Subject has only 6 MMA fights, only 1 with a notable organization. This is insufficient to pass WP:MMANOT, a guideline that did not exist when this article was nominated previously. Subject also seems to fail WP:GNG as I could not find significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, KOTC is "King of the Cage" which is on MMANOT. He's fought there twice and has fought in UFC. It's borderline, but I'd say keep Paralympiakos (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KOTC is listed as a second-tier promotion according to WP:MMANOT; notability for MMA fighters according to WP:MMANOT is to have competed several times in a top-tier promotion. Subject fails notability according to WP:MMANOT. Looking at Google search results it has MMA records and other pages with little to no information (placeholder pages it appears in many cases), therefore subject fails the more stringent WP:GNG of requiring significant coverable by reliable, independent sources. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is the second tier even for then? Paralympiakos (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second tier organizations are notable enough to not have their pages deleted. More importantly, given that organizations can grow or go out of business, it's a list of organizations to keep an eye on. As discussed at the MMA project, these organizations did not have any fighters ranked among the world's best in any weight division. How can a fighter be considered top flight if he doesn't fight top competition? Papaursa (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Paul Daley isn't with a top organisation, but he's in the top 10/15 WWs. Flyweights aren't in many top organisations, but they're still valid. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how Paul Daley belongs in a discussion about the article on Keigo Kunihara, but Daley has fought enough matches in a top-tier promotion and fought enough notable fighters to be notable, IMO. The criteria in WP:MMANOT is not what kind of organization the fighter is currently with, but what promotion(s) have they fought for in their career. Kunihara has not fought for a top-tier promotion as yet; regardless of promotion I fail to see how he passes WP:GNG. As for why the list of second-tier promotions is there, I don't know, I didn't have a hand in writing it. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Daley comment was just about how people outside of top tier organisations can be notable. Daley is with the likes of Shark Fights, thus proving that you can be notable despite not being in the top tier. Now, this came about because under my definition of MMANOT, Kunihara would pass. He has a UFC appearance and two KOTC appearances. UFC comes under top tier, with KOTC under the second tier. The above argument then came about. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we have different thought processes and interpretations of WP:MMANOT. The "criteria supporting notability" is that the fighter has "[f]ought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations". I go by a literal interpretation of that statement. As such since Daley has fought three times for UFC, the criteria applies for him, making him notable. Kunihara, has fought only once for UFC and not at all for any other top-tier promotion, therefore is not notable according to that criteria. As I alluded to previously, the promotion a fighter is currently affiliated with doesn't apply towards notability; rather a fighter's notability is based upon their career, at least IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for one second am I saying that this guy is as notable as Paul Daley. I'm just making the point that at the moment, MMANOTs second tier is effectively a useless list. If fighters have to have 3 from only the top tier, then why on earth do we have a second tier? I think we're going back to the deletionist days again. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MMMANOT guidelines are helpful, but are currently written so as to favor the exclusion of lots of fighter pages. Is there a way to modify them so as to preserve their initial intent, but favor inclusion rather than exclusion? Here is my problem with them as they currently exist: A fighter can have a 10-0 record with minor promotions and be a touted prospect with only one fight in the UFC. The current guidelines would exclude this fighter, despite the likelihood that there would be significant interest in having a page dedicated to this up-and-comer. The page would likely keep being created and deleted until the fighter has had his 3rd tier-one fight. In the meantime, we've lost the benefit of people constructively editing this page until this arbitrary cut-off is met. Most fighters with a win in their UFC debut get at least two more fights in the org, so they would eventually meet the criteria anyway. My suggestion is to change the criteria so that it reads: "(active) fighters must have at least one win with a top tier org and at least three wins in second tier orgs". This criteria could be applied to inactive fighters (such as Keigo Kunihara) as well, separate criteria could be developed, or fighters could be considered on a case by case basis. This seems perfectly reasonable to me as long at the list of second-tier orgs doesn't balloon to include every local promotion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion would probably be better at the MMA project's talk page. I will say that this was discussed when WP:MMANOT was first created. Most sports have notability that require competing at the top level or world championships or Olympics. It seems reasonable that MMA should be the same. If an athlete gathers enough press competing at lower level events he can qualify under WP:GNG. The second tier events are above local promotions, but not at the very top of the heap. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any reliable, secondary sources about him. --Akira Kouchiyama 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC), See also his Japanese name; (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). --Akira Kouchiyama 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. Can't find independent sources that show he's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2010 (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.