Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Battle (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. It looks like a rough consensus that this subject doesn't meet GNG or NMMA. If anyone wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review (rather than just moving it back to main space), contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Battle

AfDs for this article:

[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 has been nominated for AfD before and resulted in deletion. Still not yet meet GNG or NMMA notability requirements, Sources are mainly fight announcements and results which are considered routine reports. Subject fails to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in depth and indetails and not only passing mentioned for verification. Cassiopeia talk 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Missouri. Cassiopeia talk 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these refs (1, 2, 3, 4) are enough to support GNG Nswix (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nswix 1, 2 they are routine sport reports and [1], 4 they are al routine sport report and not independent as they are interview pieces. Routine sport reports (fight announcements and results) can not be contribute to GNG or NMMA requirements to have a page in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 05:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still doesn't appear to have much media coverage. Was in France fighting, but it's only mentioned [2], [3] in passing. Not enough coverage for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the article, it is well done and subject getting more and more attention. However, he is #25 in the Worldwide MMA Rankings on Tapology [4]. I don't think the subject currenlty passes WP:MMA, but an argument could be made that he passes WP:GNG. I will wait to vote. Lekkha Moun (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You only have to pass one. If every fighter had to pass NMMA, there'd only be a few hundred fighters pages. Nswix (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - NMMA use Fight Matrix and not Tapology. Fighter needs to be ranked top 10 to pass NMMA. Cassiopeia talk 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's why I said subject doesn't pass WP:MMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes I know, that's why I mentioned WP:GNG. Subject needs to pass one guideline. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not meet WP:NMMA. His current ranking is #73 and he has never defeated a fighter ranked in the top 100. The article's references seem to be mainly fight reports and announcements, along with some database entries. I may have missed something, so I am not voting currently. I would ask that anyone claiming he meets WP:GNG use WP:THREE and let me know the good sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at more of the sources and I am still seeing mainly routine sports reporting that would be standard for any pro fighter. I remain open to being convinced that he meets WP:GNG, but the coverage I looked at it is insufficient. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Very likely to meet WP:GNG in the future but WP:TOOSOON for now. –Filmforme (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2024 (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.