Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Carvalho (fighter) (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. Keeper |  76  02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bruno Carvalho (fighter)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AfD was closed, mistakenly I believe, as a "no consensus". He fails WP:NMMA with no MMA fights for a top tier organization and the coverage I could find of him was just routine sports reporting (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) or PR. The most notable thing I could find was a 2nd place finish at the IBJJF European championships, but it turns out there were only 3 competitors so he may not have even won a fight if he got the bye. That result does not seem to be enough to meet WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - As I said in the previous AFD, there needs to be better sourcing for him to pass WP:MANOTE. Also, there is some confusion between him and another Bruno Carvalho who fought in DREAM. Luchuslu (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - He fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the coverage presented in the previous AfD is enough to pass the WP:GNG. And when a subject passes the general notability guideline, the article should be kept even if the subject fails the subject specific guideline. Why has no-one in this discussion discussed if he passes GNG or not? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The coverage presented in the previous AFD was mostly for a different Bruno Carvalho. Also, the sourcing isn't good enough for this Carvalho to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The coverage presented in the previous article is indeed information tied with this Bruno Carvalho, the only notability garnered from the other Bruno is the fact he fought for DREAM, other than that (even in Grappling) he holds no notability at this time. and certainly not as much as this Bruno Carvalho. Sepulwiki (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What coverage? I see two references from the same site and the home page of his uncle. The only sources of the correct fighter presented in the previous AfD are a pre-fight interview for a Cage Force event, all the rest are for the other guy. This is the Welterweight/Middleweight Bruno, not the Lightweight Bruno. There is also no sourcing for his grappling titles. Luchuslu (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete he definitely fails WP:NMMA, and I'm not seeing enough coverage from reliable sources to allow him to pass WP:GNG either. The sources in the article aren't even close, and the stuff I see on Google is just routine results reporting. CaSJer (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It took some work to separate out the two Bruno Carvalhos (neither of which meet WP:NMMA). The best source mentioned in the previous AfD discussion (from mmajunkie) was about the other (lightweight) Bruno.  Luchuslu mentioned the only significant source for this Bruno and I don't consider that an independent source since it was on fightnetwork.com which was broadcasting the fight being discussed. Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 23 March 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.