Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Yager (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Yager

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

~~Last AFD was a no censensus because the votes werent there, but this article still fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Yager was closed 24 hours and some minutes ago. Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he doesn't meet the three-fight minumum, he did appear on two MMA reality TV shows on major networks (TUF on Spike TV and Iron Ring on BET) and is scheduled to fight for Bellator next week. Taken all together, I feel he's notable enough. Luchuslu (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had exhibition fights on Spike's TUF as well as his pro UFC fight. Passes WP:GNG and WP:V. You might want to also see WP:NOTTEMPORARY in regards to his notability gained via TUF and his UFC loss to Rich Antonnito . Please also see WP:TUF for a compelling essay noting reasons why the TUF fights these guys had should count. also has notable refs here, here, and here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could look at the many previous AFD discussions, including the original at WT:MMANOT, to see why TUF fights (except for the finale) are not counted. Jakejr (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't say that TUF fights don't count because if you read the guidelines the do count. They are top tier and they are professional fights. There are a few people that don't understand how sanctioning works that are trying to argue they aren't professional fights. Where the argument fails is that once you are a professional MMA fighter, the only MMA you can compete in is professional fights. If they weren't sanctioned, professional fights, then the fighters and Zuffa executives could be arrested and charged with holding illegal fights. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one notable fight so he fails WP:NMMA. Entity of the Void (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only 1 top tier fight of the 3 needed, he certainly fails WP:NMMA. While I think the closing admin made a mistake by closing the previous discussion as "no consensus" (it looked like a delete consensus to me), I think it's strange to reopen the discussion so soon afterwards. Jakejr (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Jamie not pass WP:V] in regards to WP:SOURCES, which happens to be a policy? I'd say he is Generally notable as per the WP:GNG. He also has gained significant coverage to be notable as per WP:NTEMP PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jamie now has enough WP:SOURCES with my additions to pass the WP:GNG easily. It would be a travesty if this page were deleted PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PortlandOregon972217 comments, fights for 2 different top tier promotions, appearances on television program twice in TUF and Iron Ring, which aired on Spike and BET. Sepulwiki (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close as non-consensus just as the first AfD was closed was the day prior to this AfD being opened.

Other comments PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs) has canvassed users favorable to their position to comments on this AfD.[1][2][3] In regards to eight sources cited in the article one is from a forum and two sources are from a Yahoo/MMA blog (these are not reliable sources), one source is the Bleacher Report (which has been questionable in the past a reliable source), two sources are from the UFC (not a secondary source), leaving a single MMAJunkie article about a routine fight announcement for the TUF finale, and a citation about his date of birth. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete link to my page Please delete the link to my talk page. PortlandOregon WAS NOT CANVASSING my page. I was already a big part of this discussion and he was pointing something out to me. I feel like by doing this you are trying to discount my input and deflect the facts that I had already stated that show that this person has clear notability. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These can pass WP:V as per WP:NEWSBLOG. Please review Jamie's latest WP:SOURCES. Oh, and MMAjunkie is apart of USATODAY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep PASSES WP:NMMA. This one isn't even close. He has 5 Professional fights for a Top Tier organization and is only required to have 3. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a clear fail since he has only 1 of the 3 required top tier fights. Jakejr (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You exaggerate. They aren't required. They only help him along passing an essay as to what constitutes a top tier fight. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and re-count. 3 of them are written up in the article and 2 more on the table. 3 + 2 = 5. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment struck since editor is topic banned
Comment I have no interest in keep or delete, however from reading the article it should be able to be kept, however at the moment the sourcing as it stands is not from quality reliable sources (it is mainly from blogs and MMA websites). I urge those advocating keep to ignore the finer points of WP:NMMA and look past it and go for passing WP:GNG; it does not matter if he has fought in 2.89472 fights, if you can demonstrate the subject passes GNG you make all of the rationales for delete based on WP:NMMA void. ✍ Mtking ✉ 10:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the voice of reason appears. Thank goodness. And not a moment too soon. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per GNG, BIO, etc. --No unique names 14:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- For what it's worth, the afd nominator is a sockpuppet. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the sockpuppet of the person who originally nominated it. Are we allowed to close this out? Willdawg111 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and doesn't meet any other notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep He clear fails WP:NMMA. However, there is barely enough coverage to pass GNG, even with several dead links in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment he just fought for Bellator today. I think this one is a wrap. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 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.