Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Jenkins (fighter)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jenkins (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA. The coverage of him all seemed to be routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Step away from going directly to the MMA guidelines as that only further defines general notability. First, does he meet WP:GNG? Looking at generally notability, I would say yes (barely), but not like he would want. According to the Bleacher Report, he holds the record (actually he is 2nd) for most losses by TKO [1]. There is also coverage in MMA Universe for what it is worth. The article in its current form is too promotional. I say strip it down to what the references say, create it as a stub, and make it about what he is notable for (losing fights). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a one line mention about his number of TKO losses and a PR release from a promotion touting its next card qualify as the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at all the sherdog sources they're lists of fight results. No publications actually about the fighter and as a result are not close to meeting GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. He lacks both notable MMA fights and significant non-routine coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Narrowly passes WP:GNG. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out the significant independent coverage of this fighter? The article's sources are routine results reporting (mainly by Sherdog) and I agree with Mdtemp's assessment of the sources mentioned by FoolMeOnce2Times. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Sepulwiki !votes 100% keep on every AFD (which have all been MMA articles) and holds only a 29% !vote to consensus match. I bring this up because no specific guideline argument has been made except 'it's notable' which is an argument to avoid. Mkdw ^talk 23:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another fight with no WP:SIGCOV and 2 top tier fights shy of meeting WP:NMMA. I had to remove several references that did not even mention Jenkins (in fact 3 of them did not even lead to pages that existed nor did Google have archived). The remaining sources are only event listing results with nothing focused on Jenkins. Mkdw ^talk 23:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since he fails to meet WP:NMMA and no one has provided any sources that show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 28 April 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.