Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Pariente (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. North America1000 03:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ido Pariente
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know there was a previous deletion discussion about this fighter and the result was to keep. However, I believe the reason why it was kept was based on wrong findings. In the previous debate comments the reason for the article to stay was that it had reliable sources talking about Ido Pariente, thus making him notable for an article. This does not seem the case on a deeper inspection of each reference. Gonnym (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of the 27 references in the article:

19 references are not relevant: Question: You are fighting a guy, Ido Pariente. What do you know about him? Shields: I do not know too much. He is a brown belt in Jiu-Jitsu. He supposedly has got pretty good Muay Thai (skills). I have only gotten one fight of his, but he was pretty good. I think he is someone I should beat, but it is hard to tell. He is pretty much an unknown because of only having one fight and coming from Israel. It is hard to know too much about the guy.
 * 2 (#8 and #11) are QA with him which do not count as a reliable source.
 * 3 (#5, #13 and #25) are broken links.
 * 9 (#2, #9, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18 and #19) mention his name in the context of the fight between Jake Shields and him. Jake Shields being the reason the news article was even created. One reference (#9) is even this quote:
 * 3 (#22, #23, #24) mention his name in the context of the fight between Efrain Escudero and him. Efrain Escudero being the reason the news article was even created (they are just recaps of the fight).
 * #20 is a reference from The Jerusalem Post with no link so I can't verify.
 * #10 is about him giving a seminar and mentions his awards, however, the wording is very similar to the one used in Wikipedia (which itself is ONLY based on his answers in refs #8 and #11), the article seems more like a fluff/press article and not a news one.

4 seem relevant but aren't:
 * #1 is a reference from ynet which is this line: "Ido Pariente, 33, a fighter and trainer, says MMA demands "strength, athleticism, flexibility and more balance than in any other sport." - this reference is a joke.
 * #4 is a local newspaper reporting on a fight between a "Johnston City native" Josh Hewlett and Ido Pariente. The interview is with Hewlett and his trainer, with Pariente's name only mentioned once the whole article.
 * #6 is a list of of weekend fight results, most of the fighters here do not have an article as they aren't notable.
 * #27 is a record of his fights which include only 3 fights (and is used to reference a win not even mentioned in this list).

So after all these non-relevant references we end up with 3 references that are slightly about him:
 * #21 is about a local tournament in Israel with 6 matches which he won and kept his title (important to note: MMANOT does not count this tournament notable)
 * #26 is about him winning against Joshua Hewletta.
 * #7 is about a match between him and Travis Adams with 3/4 of the paragraph talking about his previous fights vs Jake Shields and Efrain Escudero (which again, are the only reason it was mentioned).

Considering the reason Ido Pariente's article was created was based on his fighting accomplishments, which they them-self aren't notable as per MMANOT, and most of the references on his article page have no value being on there, it seems this person is not notable enough for his own article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Per the speedy keep in the prior AfD nomination. And the fact that links that worked at the time of the prior AfD are now broken is -- of course -- not reason to not count them now. And of course the fact that he attracted GNG coverage because of his fight with Shields counts towards GNG -- any other conclusion, which nom seems to have, is not based on how WP works.
 * Clearly meets GNG. Poor nomination, which doesn't even mention that the prior keep was a speedy.
 * He only has to meet GNG, which he does -- not MMA-specific supplementary criteria, which are secondary (and MMANOT is not even that! It is an essay. The view of one or more editors -- that's all -- just like any individual comment here ... as opposed to the guideline GNG). Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I might not have mentioned the words "speedy keep" but i mentioned WHY it was kept. I went over each link (and can even post you the exact words from each web site if you really want to see what was said) and shown that the references used here for the speedy keep, have no "meat" in them. Its just a name drop in an news item about someone else. The fact that Jake Shields or Efrain Escudero are notable and reporting their fight is newsworthy, doesnt automatically make their opponent become notable. Addressing a guide without addressing this specific issue I'm raising about the relevance of such links is just missing the point. And again, regarding the meta issue, if he's titles aren't notable, then what is this article about? some fighter that has a few (very few) news item about him? I've seen articles about journalists and film crew get deleted with them being much more relevant--Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Also, regarding WP:GNG:
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material - there is not significant coverage, and most of the 27 references on his article are very trivial mentions.
 * Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - Some of the sources are Questions and Answers with him, not a reliable source. Also, the ONLY source for his titles comes from those 2 QA sources.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. - One of the sources linked seems very much as an advertising/press releases.
 * This does not seem like an article meeting a speedy keep at all, and in my opinion, not even a keep. --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, your analysis is flawed. Not just your over-emphasis of an essay.
 * But your failure to understand that it is GNG that is the key here. And your mistaken belief that significant independent RS coverage of his most notable fight does not count towards GNG, and has "no meat". And the other points I make above. And your continued misunderstanding that he has not meet non-GNG criteria of "famous titles". That's of course flatly incorrect -- at the core of your nomination.
 * He just has to meet GNG. If he has GNG coverage for winning his kindergarten titles, that would satisfy GNG. There's absolutely nothing in GNG to support your mistaken view. And just the opposite -- even when an athlete meets a sport-specific  notability guideline criterion, it is only a presumption as a result that the person meets GNG.  Because at the end of the day, it is GNG that is key.
 * I'm not sure why you are leaving such long posts about irrelevant aspects -- I would suggest that you stick to the relevant points. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * N.B.--the nom in the prior nomination, which was closed a speedy keep, was blocked indefinitely as a sock/puppet. Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NMMA LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentActually he does not meet WP:NMMA. The fights in his table in article page aren't the ones listed on the list you are referring to.--Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes WP:MMANOT is an essay but it reflects WP:NMMA which is a guideline and which he does not meet. Should also mention that fighting someone notable at some point does not confer notability either (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is important where they were fought.   The question raised is does he meet WP:GNG - I will think about this a bit before I vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Essays, though they confusingly (to some) start with WP just as guidelines do, are simply a view of one or more editors or collection of editors -- nothing more, and may not reflect the consensus of the project.
 * As to WP:NNMA, it has to be read in context. At the top of the page it states: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The entire purpose is -- as made clear -- to determine if the athlete meets GNG. That is the dog -- the sport-specific guideline is the tail, and does not wag the dog.  Where an athlete meets GNG -- that is what is important. It matters not a whit whether he met it while he also would have met a sport-specific guideline.  The nom has it backwards. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think these sources are enough to show he meets GNG. What I see are fight announcements and results, which any fighter would have but these are routine sports coverage. The short interview with the Eastern Europe BJJ might count as significant coverage, but otherwise I'm not seeing supporting evidence of notability. He has no top tier MMA fights so he definitely fails WP:NMMA and I could find no coverage of him winning a pankration world championship even though I searched news media and several major pankration organization websites.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question for User:Gonnym, Where do you find that that citations "(#8 and #11) are QA with him which do not count as a reliable source"? When publications give space and correspondent's time to interview an individual (Q & A), it certainly counts towards notability.  In fact, published solo interviews constitute notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not check if the websites having the QA with him are notable, but what I meant, and sorry for not being clear on this, is that the ONLY source for him winning anything comes from answers he himself gave. There are no secondary sources to verify this, making it not a reliable source for this specific information. In addition, the ONLY reason he has an article is because he is a martial arts fighter who won some awards, and those awards are based on his words only with no outside sources.--Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is extensive,there are two interviews (sources 8 and 11) in fighting magazines, and the brief interview with Eastern Europe BJJ. There are descriptions of many of his fights in bluelinked publications, like this one from  Sherdog. Some coverage is driven by the fact taht there are not many Israeli professional fighters, it seems surprising to fight fans, so it gets covered.  As in this 2014 article  that brings Pariente in to make the point that Israeli prizefighters are unusual.  Coverage, however motivated, is ongoing and extensive, which is why this passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As I pointed above, the only reason the two QA interviews are used is to verify the awards he has, which is only verified by him saying he has them. On a somewhat related note, both websites, bjjee.com and Fighters.com, do not have a Wikipedia article on them. Is that because they are not notable enough for an artilce or just because no one created one? I do not know, but if its because they aren't notable then as a source they have even less relevance.--Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A source can be reliable and not have a WP article on it. That's not saying these sources are reliable, simply that having a WP page isn't a valid indicator one way or the other. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding this - this again fails WP:GNG as the article is about Noad Lahaht and his achievements are the main coverage of the article, and Ido Pariente being there is NOT a "Significant coverage" but a very much trivial mention of him "also being Israeli" and because he lost to notable fighter Efrain Escudero (which does not automatically make him notable WP:NOTINHERITED). --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. A topic being sourced per WP:V need never be the sole topic being discussed within the source.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm inclined to discount interviews from MMA websites that stem from him competing at TUF (where he lost his elimination fight and didn't even get to the team selection stage) because that's the UFC promotional machinery at work. I am surprised to see all those sources listed but such a dearth of clearly significant coverage. I'm not voting yet, I'm waiting to see if someone can point out several sources of significant coverage from reliable sources that aren't routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to some non-routine coverage from a general circulation, national daily cite on page omits url.  Links on page to YNET and Haaretz are also not routine sports coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these show significant, non-routine coverage. The first is a detailed description of the fights at an Israeli MMA event--much like you could find on any baseball game (routine sports reporting). The YNET source says Pariente is "a fighter and trainer" and quotes him as saying MMA "is a serious sport" (not significant) and the Haaretz article mentions him once "Ido Pariente won in just over two minutes" in an article covering an MMA event (routine sports reporting and not significant).Mdtemp (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I read them differently. for example this one from the Jerusalem Post, that you characterize as: " a detailed description of the fights at an Israeli MMA event--much like you could find on any baseball game (routine sports reporting)"  Is clearly an article introducing a new sport to the country/readership, subtitled  "Mixed Martial Arts is doing a smashing job of becoming a new Israeli sport. We joined the fans in TA. " It does just that, here is the section where Pariente is introduced: "Ido Pariente, one of the brightest stars in Israeli MMA, has struggled to make his way in the sport. He takes as many fights as he can overseas, where purses are higher than they are here and where exposure at one event can lead to an invitation to another. "Every fight I get to do abroad is half conniving, half begging," Pariente says in Tel Aviv ahead of the Desert Combat 5 event. "It's a way of developing the sport here, too. The younger fighters who are coming up now and starting to get their chance, I opened the door for them." Pariente, 30, pays the bills by training some 70-80 students, overseeing a handful of clubs. Like the rest of the local mixed martial artists, he knows that if big money comes at all, it will come to the next generation of fighters."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the Jerusalem Post article does provide an indicator of notability. He is mentioned enough in the article even though the main thrust is the introduction of MMA.  Is it enough for WP:GNG maybe.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This interview is also persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Less so IMHO - although not to be entirely discounted.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Although there's an attempt to pile on sources, they don't seem to show significant independent coverage. Passing mentions and routine sports reporting do not show he meets WP:GNG and he doesn't meet any other notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IP editing, bad-mouthing evidently without reading recently added material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anon IPs can be ignored by a closer.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually no - anon IPs comments are perfectly valid.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, anon IPs may comment, but WP:AFD tells us "unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." So yes, anon IPs may be discounted.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like this IP has 700-800 edits going back several years so he's not new. Based on your quote, his vote can only be discounted if it's in "bad faith". Is that what you're claiming?  I don't think his vote will make a difference, I'm just trying to clarify policy with an administrator. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP, editing not from their personal computer but rather from a college computer, certainly has what appears to me to be an unusual editing history, if you look through it. First - they are not editing from their home computer, but from a Howard College computer. Second - after not editing for months, they make 27 AfD !votes in rapid-fire sequence. I have no idea whether they are trying to "hide" the !vote they are really interested in, in a bevy of !votes. But they did the precise some thing with their prior edits --a bunch in one day in March, and a bunch in one day in February.  Third - the IP sometimes took as little as 1 minute between !votes. Fourth - the nom in the previous AfD has been blocked indefinitely as a sock or puppet.  Fifth - the MMA AfDs have had a history of troublesome sockpuppetry, with the socks !voting delete; some of the sock history in MMA AfDs is reflected here, but it goes further.Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any IP coming from Howard Community College in Maryland involved with AfD and MMA is almost certainly the same individual getting around a sock block and/or stacking !votes. There is a long history. -- Green  C  14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly part of the difficulty in this discussion is that sporting editors are viewing this primarily according to WP:NMMA, while those of us who edit in other areas (I personally more often do academics, artists, writers) see the coverage generated in by the Israeli angle (hey - Israel has a MMA contender!) in places that don't usually cover MMA/Martial arts (Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz) see it as passing WP:GNG. I should point out that this sort of thing (a national press covering a pianist or tennis player who wins a few matches but makes a very slight ripple in international professional circles) often happens in the ethnic press and in small countries.  But these articles combine to satisfy GNG.   See, for example, Nasreen Qadri, who may, for all I know, be a fine singer, but who surely would not have enough to pass notability without the write-ups generated by the unusual juxtaposition of ethnicity and art form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. See, also, RS GNG coverage in Hebrew.  Such as here, here, here, and here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep my computer's security settings fairly high so I can't access all of these, but they appear to be from his club or a brief rundown of one of his fights--which I would say falls under routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might try changing your settings to look at the RS sourcing. I'm unclear how you can comment on what you do not see -- which of the four articles do you not see? All of them?
 * These are not from his club -- these are, rather, substantial RS reporting from independent sources of his athletic performances -- exactly the sort of substantial RS reporting of athletic performances that satisfy GNG. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. WP:NRVE is established and by meeting WP:GNG he meets WP:BASIC (which tells us that SNGs do not have to be met if the GNG is). Time to close as a sound keep.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. While editors are encouraged to look toward Subject-specific Notability Guideliness when the primary notability guideline is failed, when the primary notability guideline is NOT failed, we need not look to various SNGs to decide that the primary notability guideline can be ignored and decide, contrary to the instruction of the primary notability guideline, that established notability does not exist. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG. What was brought to AFD a decent article that is well-sourced, informative to readers, and which serves the project. Non-English coverage is perfectly fine. The nominator also failed to tell us he did not meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CREATIVE... other inappropriate SNGs that do not over-rule GNG.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that is just silly. Mentioning all SNGs that are unrelated to the subject serves no purpose.  His main claim to fame is as a mixed martial artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but the point was that this whole repeat AFD for this Israeli personality is "silly". No matter a feeling "his main claim to fame" is MMA, his notability is found through meeting WP:GNG, and meeting the primary inclusion criteria is not diminished by an insistence he does not meet an SNG. The missed point is that multiple less-than-substantial sources are fine, and the SNGs do not over-rule the governing GNG. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if most of the claimed dubious rerferences are, the remain a sufficient number of valid refs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think E.M. Gregory nailed it when he commented on how people who edit sports articles may see things different. Nobody is disputing the GNG trumps all SNG.  The issue appears to be what constitutes "significant coverage". Reports on his fights are no more indicative of notability than the usual write-ups of a minor league baseball game (chosen because he was competing in the MMA minor leagues). For example, pre and post-game interviews would not be considered significant coverage for a baseball minor leaguer nor would announcements that a player will be playing in an upcoming game. While I haven't voted in this discussion, I did want to point out why the decision might not be as clear cut as some are claiming. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even just looking solely at the four Hebrew RS refs above, we see substantial RS coverage of him that meets GNG. And, by the way, minor league baseball players that receive GNG coverage are notable as well -- as has been demonstrated in many AfDs. Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But not for appearing in boxscores or game write-ups. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For substantial RS coverage of their participation in their sport. At the below-major-league level. As with hundreds of minor league baseball players you can find in Category:Minor league baseball players. Similar to what we have in even just the four articles in Hebrew I mention above, which should have come up in nom's wp:before search. Plus -- Papa -- you say above you "can't access all of the Hebrew articles." Well, then how are you opining on what you can't access? Obtain access if you like, and comment on them. You can't dismiss RS articles, with multiple paragraphs discussing the subject, that you haven't even read, on a guess as to what the articles contain.
 * Plus look at the substantial 40-sentences coverage of him in this feature article in The Jerusalem Post - far more than a trivial passing mention, or one-sentence "Pariente won" result that counts as trivial mention. Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment My understanding is that there is no general statement about whether SNGs are in addition to the requirements of the GNG, or a possible alternative to it. WP:PRO, for example is explicitly an alternative. I was of the impression that the sports guidelines were specifically a limitation, but I   work very little in this field and I see that the current wording at NSPORTS says exactly the opposite. Personally, I think we certainly have the ability to decide there should be additional requirements, and I think the reason we need to use this right is to limit the drastic overcoverage in fields where there is extensive publicity. Whether this is one of them needs to be left to the entire community: a subject group can suggest rules, but I think current practice is  that the community as a whole has to decide whether to follow them.    In any case,I think  we cerrtainly have the right to decide by consensus whether this person is actually notable or not, if necessary under IAR, but this use of IAR shouldn't really be necessary because WP:N explictly says it does not apply to all situations, and leaves us to decide whether or not   to use it.
 * One way we decide this has been to interpret the requirement for RSs more or less strictly, especially the key phrases  substantial coverage, and     independent . We have consistently held, for example, that local book reviews are not sufficiently discriminating to be reliable for notability purposes, nor --in any subject--articles in student newspapers.  We would I think do much better better to have explicit requirements in many subjects, and I regret very much that this seems not to be the current trend here, and hope that trend changes. As this is not my field,  I have no view on this particular article, and its sources.  DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I read the 4 articles form the Isreali (Hebrew) press mentioned above, they have a tone, similar to the Haaretz and Jerusalem Post articles also mentioned above, but easy to access (new sport comes to Israel, details of the matches in which the "Hebrew Hammer" Pariente fought, short discussions of Pariente's career, some have unremarkable quotes from him) I even clicked his name into a news search and read (on google translate) a few very similar articles in Romanian (new sport comes to Romania! Romanians fighters fight matches against famous international champions!, a Romanian matched against famous Israeli Fighter the Hebrew hammer Pariente) google translate is always good for chuckles, but easy to get the general drift of the brief hype, er, coverage.
 * My point is that this is a glass is half empty/glass is half full kind of argument. We are unlikely to agree. maybe it will look differently in a year or two but for now,  I suggest that an editor close it as no consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Undecided needs more work to Improve Chunlinc (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2015 (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.