Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey O'Neill


 * 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. Despite a couple of gos no policy based argument for keeping has emerged Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Casey O'Neill

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC) and fail GNG for content of of fights is random sport report.  Cassiopeia(talk) 02:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia(talk) 02:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia(talk) 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion that this page should be deleted. O'Neill had an extremely impressed UFC debut and that view has been echoed by many main stream media outlets like UFC.com and Bloody Elbow. Clearly she is going to have at least one more UFC fight after this performance and in all likelihood will have many UFC fights in her career. Notability is no longer an issue as she's fought for the biggest company in the world. User:Litmus123 02:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.190.251 (talk)
 * Delete Does not meet notability criteria HeinzMaster (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not about she will have more fights - WP:CRYSTAL, but when she has secured the fights that required.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It shouldn't just be about reaching an arbitrary number of UFC fights. Let's use Anderson Silva as an example. His article was created on June 2, 2006 (26 days before his UFC debut). He then had one of the most impressive UFC debuts we've ever seen and not once did anyone suggest the deletion of his page either before or after his UFC debut. (User talk:Litmus123) 03:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.190.251 (talk)
 * Comparing Casey to Anderson Silva is not valid since Silva was already a PRIDE veteran at that point, with PRIDE being a top tier organization when it was in business. O'Neill has fought for Eternal MMA and UAE Warriors, two organizations which are no where the level of PRIDE. HeinzMaster (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Silva was just used as an example but since you have an issue with the low level company a fighter has come from, let's use Junior dos Santos as an example. He fought in considerably smaller Brazilian promotions (Demo, Minotauro etc.) and captured six wins before debuting in the UFC on October 25, 2008 and won in impressive style. His wiki article was then created on October 26, 2008 and not a single person suggested the article should be deleted at any point. How about Max Holloway? He was fighting in low level local Hawaiian promotions and had only competed in four professional fights before debuting in the UFC. His wiki article was created on January 20, 2012 (15 days before his UFC debut) and he actually lost in his first UFC fight but once again not a single user suggested his page should be deleted. I'm certain there are countless examples of this happening so why are the rules different for the Casey O'Neill page? Clearly the arbitrary criteria hasn't been followed on many occasions and I would argue as soon as a fighter has competed in the largest MMA promotion in the world - the UFC, they have become notable enough to warrant their own wiki article. Litmus123 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: pls familiar yourslef wit the said guideliens and please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes .<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. Errors, vandalism pages/pages, unsourced content, and etc have added in everyday and many to them are new user who do not know about Wikipedia guidelines, and their edits went unnoticed. If a page is created where by the subject has yet to be notable but no one takes the action to bring it to AfD, then it stays Wikipedia, same as vandalism edits. Do note even a page is accepted by reviewer, but the subject is not notable, then any editor can nominate the page to be deleted. If the page survive the nomination, the page still can re-nominated for deletion by other editor if the future if notability is not established, in short only article is notable will stay in Wikipedia in good. O'Neil page will be accepted when she has fought 3 fights in UFC and not before.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 07:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with what you've written because an impressive UFC debut makes a fighter notable enough to warrant a wiki article in my opinion but obviously I'm powerless in this situation. Litmus123 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand you are a new editor and might not aware some of the Wikipedia guidelines. What I say above is not my opinion but that is how Wikipedia works/guidelines. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the whole point of this page to debate whether an article should be deleted? There hasn't been much debating going on here. I've put forward multiple points which I feel are valid in terms of maintaining the article and you're just ignoring what I'm writing and sticking to an arbitrary number that really doesn't indicate notability at all. Litmus123 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD is a discussion and not a debate and it is based on notability guidelines.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 10:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's confusing when this page been placed inside categories such as 'AfD debates'... I've made it clear I completely disagree with the reasoning for deleting the article so there isn't really any reason to take this discussion any further unless someone else has something to add. Litmus123 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment She definitely does not meet WP:NMMA. I think that it's quite likely she will get the two additional top tier fights required to meet that criteria, but she's not there yet.  Rather than outright deleting the article and its information, I'd suggest putting it in Litmus123's sandbox so he can resubmit it when she meets WP:NMMA.  I'm not suggesting to leave it in draft space because it's unlikely that she will meet WP:NMMA in the six month window used to improve drafts.  Of course, the draft copy of this article also needs to be dealt with. , you took a draft article, Draft:Casey O'Neill, and copied it into the article mainspace without changing anything or submitting it for review.  These actions by new editors are generally frowned upon.  You should also familiarize yourself with the MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The draft copy of the subject Draft:Casey O'Neill is also created by . The draft was declined and Litmus123 just created the same page in new page. So to move to Ltmus123 does not make sense to place it on Litmus123's sandbox and we already have a copy of draft, which we are adding info and will add more sourced content  when it is available such as new fights, until such time the subject is notable to review and move to new page.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew he created the draft and then recopied it to the main article space. I was just concerned that, given the infrequency of many MMA fighters, there might not be much in the way of improvements during the standard six month period.  I just didn't want everything to disappear since I think there's a very good chance she becomes WP notable.  Since he created the article I thought a move to his sandbox was reasonable.  If you're convinced there will be enough changes to the draft, I'll defer to you. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * HeinzMaster and I are tracking all the upcoming notable fighters in UFC and adding sourced content on upcoming fights. I will review and move them to mainspace when they are notable in regardless who are the original creators. I believe the subject/ O'Neill will be offered another fight in next six months which the probability is very high. I will keep an eye on the draft to make sure it would not be G13. (G13 is not automatic process, as it has to be nominated and the draft is on my watchlist). Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.