Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafał Moks

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 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Moks

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization so he fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who would have thought that being an M-1 Champ would be that big a deal. with his WP:SOURCES he passes WP:GNG. Especially since Notability is not temporary. I feel more educated about mma after this AFD. Thank you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as at this version of the article (of which I was a principal author), there were 22 references, with primary sources only used for uncontroversial material. He was M-1 Global Western European champion and then overall champion. His notability had been unambiguously established by that point, and what has happened to him and the article since then is irrelevant. The relevant policies are WP:N and WP:GNG, and whatever arguments there are within the MMA WikiProject over WP:NMMA cannot alter either the threshhold for retaining an article or the fact that the sources demonstrate that the threshhold has been met. EdChem (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Portland Oregon97217. Sepulwiki (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA and he's not notable for anything but his MMA career. There are lots of sources but they appear to be routine sports coverage so he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Sources such as Sherdog cannot be used for GNG as they are deemed trivial, routine sports coverage. No refs go into "significant detail" that is required, but are merely stat sites. Bgwhite (talk) 17:53, 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 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Bgwhite. Fails WP:NMMA. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough top-tier fights per WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG despite the sources. Former titlist with a .500 record and on a four-fight losing streak in a second-tier promotion. Luchuslu (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has no fights for a top tier organization. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting, nothing significant. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT as he was a champion for a very good MMA organisation. Is well sourced and passes WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Above arguments such as "on a 4 fight losing streak" are completely irrelevant. Perhaps he's on a skid, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was a champion in M-1; a top organisation. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was a champion of a second tier organization does not show notability according to WP:NMMA. It also must seem important to the MMA world, otherwise he probably would have gotten a shot with a top tier organization. I do agree a 4 fight loss streak is irrelevant for the MMA notability criteria, although it might explain why he's not fighting in the top tier. Mdtemp (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, I assume you meant "unimportant" instead of "important" in your last comment. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 26 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, Wifione ^Message 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable since he has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:58, 22 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.