Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee (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. KTC (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Antonio McKee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No consensus reached last time, but this article still fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 07:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep With his new refs he passes WP:V with reliable WP:SOURCES. Plus he has several notable fights. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee was closed a mere two hours before this renomination. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. On the merits of the article alone, I'd say to keep as passing WP:GNG. While I'm not convinced that the quick renomination meets the criteria of WP:Speedy keep, I'm also not sure it's the best good-faith tactic for dealing with this, so I oppose the deletion request on procedural grounds. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He still fails WP:NMMA and I don't think winning the California Community College wrestling championship is enough to show notability.  I did post on JadeSnake's talk page that is was bad form to repost an AfD that soon and I think/hope he now understands that.  Since WP:NOTBUREAU I favor letting this AFD run its course.   I expect the outcome to be the same as before, but I see no harm in continuing a discussion that's already started. Jakejr (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although there have been significant changes made since the last afd. So I expect this one to be different. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as non-conensus as per the last AfD on this person which closed less than a day ago. It's highly doubtful that consensus would have changed in such a short period of time. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment :Why ignore all of the new WP:SOURCES that have been added recently? He is clearly notable at this point. Wheres an admin when you need one? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * C.Fred is an admin. Although he opposes, i agree with TreyGeek and i would support a speedy keep. I also would like to put another point in question: JadeSnake was also confirmed a sockpuppet of JonnyBonesJones, who was recently blocked indefinitely. If it does not meet the criteria, i keep my opinion from the last discussion, meets WP:GNG.  Poison  Whiskey  18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to have enough sourcing to pass WP:N, which is the gold standard of notability, not WP:NMMA. Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that passing WP:GNG would be sufficient, but most of what I see for sources are routine sports reporting--upcoming fight announcements and results. Mdtemp (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment What about this Sports Illustrated interview? Nor routine, nor a mere announceement/result. I also ask about the USA Today/MMajunkie article which announces his UFC signing? Which strikes me as more than routine, but rather a big deal. It clearly says in there that he does not have a fight or a timeline in place for one. It is also not a trivial mention of him either. The article is not a press release. In fact, it is critical of Mckee. What about This yahoo Sports article? It is definitely non routine, and can be used as a source according to WP:NEWSBLOG. That alone is enough to pass WP:N PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - One of the most notable non-UFC fighters before his bout at UFC 125. Held one of the longest winning streaks in the sport at one time. The sources added are more than routine IMO, plus his collegiate wrestling accomplishments greatly help his WP:GNG argument. Being a titlist in a major second-tier organization should also be taken into consideration. Luchuslu (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:ATHLETE, Fails WP:NMMA, Fails WP:BLP, (and a host of other possible qualifiers), most of this is routine sports reporting, and doesn't qualify as sourcing. yes, there is a lot of it, but non of it qualifies. Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, what counts as a source is best described by the guideline at WP:SOURCES, which this article meets, and not your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES essay, Which Mckee does in fact pass.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your casual dismissal of all the article's sourcing? Yes some of the sources are routine sports coverage, but many of them are transcripts of interviews and feature pieces. This, this, and this certainly don't seem "routine" to me, let alone the Sports Illustrated interview with Josh Gross. Luchuslu (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Those that are saying that it meets the GNG but fails NMMA need to realize that the NMMA is alternative to the GNG; normally if an article can't meet the GNG, we look to subject-specific notability guides like NMMA for alternative criteria. But that doesn't mean that an article that would fall under the SNG needs to meet the SNG if it already meets the GNG. Also, I will point out that the previous AFD has identified broader sources that simply haven't been brought into the article. Per WP:V and WP:N, this is acceptable to say that such sources exists. --M ASEM  (t) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete I agree, Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:ATHLETE, Fails WP:NMMA, Fails WP:BLP, Ref's are poor! deangunn (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013
 * What is wrong with the articles linked to in PortlandOregon97217's comment a few comments up? Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy close WHY is this still open? It is a re-listing of an AFD that was closed two hours prior!! --SubSeven (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares? WP≠ bureaucracy. And besides, this is looking more and more like a keep to me. Better to get it out of the way now then have this discussion weeks from now I'd say PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but you can make a case for WP:GNG. The Sports Illustrated artice is the best example.  There seems to be significant coverage in other sources, but I'm not sure they're reliable.  Most of the sources are routine, but he seems to have gained notoriety (and hence coverage) for being controversial. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.