Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinier de Ridder

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 cannot accept bare assertions that GNG/NMMA are met when these assertions have been challenged and the requested sources have not been forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinier de Ridder[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)

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and ranked as 32] which is way outside the world top ten ranking. Subject also fails GNG as the fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some links that might help with passing GNG [1][2][3] HeinzMaster (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment" Do you have any IRS outside his mma career for many mma fighters have some articles writing about them but there are not notable. Just as there are always have some articles (IRS) talk about a politician during their campaign prior an election and they are still not considred notable as per NPOL until they have been elected; but if subject have other IRS on other then the current career then that is a different thing such as Carlos Ulberg for he is a model besides being a fighter. However, I will let other editors to join the discussion and decide the result of this AfD. BTW 3 sources is not considered significant coverage. Cassiopeia talk 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 3 sources is not considered significant coverage. Under which policy or guideline is that? gidonb (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging nominator so they can still react. gidonb (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying once more to get answers on this statement from Cassiopeia. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Too pass the notability, subject need to be covered by significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk above the subject directly in depth and in length and not merely passing mentioned. 3 sources does not qualify as significant coverage but at least 5-7 and above. Cassiopeia

@Cassiopeia: You do not explain, just say: sources does not qualify as significant coverage but at least 5-7 and above. Again, based on what policy or guideline? gidonb (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

talk 23:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To me, significant coverage is not one, or two (a few), several (3-4) sources. Let other editor and closing editor to decide. Cassiopeia talk 02:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basically saying that this is not really based in our policies and guidelines but that you, personally, have a radical view of the WP:GNG. That is of course ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (including expressing these on policy/guideline talk pages), however, when you then go and open a lot of AfDs based on this radical view, and next also argue as the nominator with participants who happen to have a conventional view of the WP:GNG, you are holding the development and quality control of WP back as editors will be drawn to spend ever more time in AfDs and related procedures instead of much needed work in the article space. This is my concern with unnecessary nominations! Maybe we can all think about the wisdom of so many nominations, where the WP:GNG is met by regular WP standards, that come along with lengthy arguments under about every user who has a different (conventional) opinion. gidonb (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. @@@XyX _talk 21:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes NMMA.

https://www.espn.com/mma/fighter/_/id/4423880/reinier-de-ridder Trommelaap (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he doesn't meet any of the WP:NMMA criteria. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: To be the subject fails GNG. See above comment. Cassiopeia talk 23:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. We can restore this page back in a year or two, as he isn't far off from meeting WP:MMABIO. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (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.