Talk:Julianna Peña

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

I read the guidelines for mixed martial arts sports figures on what is considered a notable person for a biography and it states that they should have 3 professional bouts in a top-tier organization. Peña technically has one professional fight in the UFC which won her the Ultimate Fighter season 18 tournament and a multiple fight contract with the UFC. Although the fights that were aired on Fox Sports 1 from the TUF tournament are technically considered exhibition matches, I believe, they were certainly fought for the UFC which is the largest MMA organization on the planet and are just as competitive and full contact as regular bouts. They are also sanctioned bouts under the same rules barring that in preliminary and elimination fight, a third round is only fought if neither fighter has won the first two rounds on the judges' scorecards. Additionally, winning TUF is considered a major accomplishment within that organization. She also has notability as a reality show contestant since TUF is both an MMA tournament and a reality television show. Finally, since the UFC only recently introduced the women's Bantamweight division within its promotion, there are no female fighters within the organization that have three professional fights in the organization. Being that Peña has fought several times within the TUF competition against other members of the UFC's female Bantamweight division and is the first female Ultimate Fighter winner, she is currently one of the most notable female members of the UFC which is the premier mixed martial arts promotion in the world. Wayweary (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for informations sake - a stronger case for notability should be made. The TUF contribution has been discussed at WP:MMANOT please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 7 for an example although there are others in other archives. I personally don't think that lack of the three fight top tier minimum defines the worth of the article but in that case there must be something else. The first woman to win Ultimate fighter could be for instance but certainly extensive coverage in mainstream press.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the fact that she is the first female winner of TUF (after 18 seasons) but there is also simply the fact that she is a winner at all of a reality show under Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants). It states that the "guideline is not Wikipedia policy; however, these criteria are considered a fair test of whether a Reality Television participant merits an article at Wikipedia." The first criteria is "The subject was the winner of the TV programme in question" for example "Cameron Stout from Big Brother 2003 (UK)." She not only fulfills this criteria but as the winner of the program but is also the first and only female winner at this point. Additionally, the prize for winning the show is what I believe is a nine fight contract with the UFC. Even if she hasn't fought three times for them, it is certain to happen soon. Also, it should be noted that the wikipedia page for Kelvin Gastelum currently exists and has existed and he is the last winner of TUF (season 17) but has yet to fight 3 in the UFC or another top tier organization and would therefore not meet the notability requirements under the guidelines for notable MMA athletes for the same reason you might exclude Julianna Peña. Also, with her being the first female winner of TUF, I imagine there are plenty articles that have been written about that fact alone. Such as http://msn.foxsports.com/ufc/story/julianna-pena-becomes-the-first-ever-women%2527s-ultimate-fighter-champion-113013 . She also was included in stories having to do with her comments about current UFC Bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey such as http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-cagewriter/tuf-18-winner-julianna-pena-blasts-ronda-rousey-153556682--mma.html and http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1871563-julianna-pena-goes-off-on-ronda-rousey-after-tuf-18-finale . Although the discussion page you referenced said that only the finale fight counts towards her total of fights for top-tier organizations, she also fought a very notable (top ten ranked) fighter who has a long history of competing in top-tiered organizations and one other fighter that fought for a top-tiered organization. Both of these fights could easily occurred in a top-tiered organization based on ranking. This is a somewhat different situation than most of the TUF contestants, including TUF winners. With the women's Bantamweight division being as new as it is, the notability of the TUF winner is much greater than that of most TUF winners. Journalists are already fielding questions about the potential for her to challenge for the title as evidenced by the above-mentioned stories. And seriously, I've seen much less notable persons with their own pages on wikipedia than her who were debated over and allowed to remain. Wayweary (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said it is an informational tag to show needs for improvement - not a deletion debate. Based on what you argue I wont be bringing it to an AfD debate any time soon although others might. Nothing stopping you from removing the tag if you feel like it but it does contain useful source links.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. I didn't know what that meant. I've only ever edited a very few pages on occasion. Thanks. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what I should include in terms of more information if you have any ideas. Wayweary (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Julianna Peña. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julianna Peña. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]