Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hess


 * 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 concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Hess

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Only one outside source, sherdog.com (a special-interest MMA website). Several sources only mention Hess in passing. While the article makes assertions of notability, I don't know that they are valid (e.g. "co-founder of the Scientific Aggressive Fighting Technology of America, or S.A.F.T.A." doesn't seem notable). Most importantly, Hess has virtually no notable fighting experience (1:32 - that's minutes:seconds). The article also suffers from serious WP:V/WP:BLP issues, plus COI problems (Hess himself has edited the article). Cheeser1 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Err that's not all his experience, just his professional record, implying it is, is unfair, competitors had to have some background to get into the tournament. Sherdog articles are reasonable sources, the forums aren't in a similar manner to stash dot. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Slashdot is not the only forum that isn't a reliable source, but I never insinuated that Sherdog was unreliable, only that it was a very detailed, special-interest MMA site, and even so, barely contains anything that could give Hess notability (several articles cited are not about Hess). Also, it's obvious that I'm talking about his professional record - that's the notable part. That's like saying "it's not fair, Failed Olympian #247 may have only competed in 2 seconds of the Olympics, but they played alot of water polo in their childhood." You have to argue for notability, not against non-notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I never said forums were reliable, I explicitly said there were to parts to the site one of which was reliable. I don't see the problem with sourcing from independent special interest sites, the presence dosen't argue for notability, the reported content does. The longest match at UFC 5 (ignoring the superfight) was less than 5 minuets, 1:32 isn't that short on screen time was probably 5 times that. In addition what happened in that time is relevent, a controversial possible foul, say Olympian #247 had punched an opponent which is why he was only on for that time? Next point this is a straw man to go to the extremes of saying 2 seconds, and talking about childhood sport, Hess wouldn't have been there if he didn't have some record of amateur or pro-fights in another sport (there had been a total of 4 pro MMA competitions in the US at this point!), implying he walked in off the street to fight is wrong. I wasn't arguing against non-notability but against a biased presentation of the facts. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of this changes the fact that the subject of this article is not the subject of multiple reliable independent sources. That's the gold standard of WP:N. Sherdog.com is the only source cited relevant to Hess, and the two pages cited sure don't give me the impression that Hess is notable. See my comment below. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage from independent reliable sources, hence no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this article were about Jon Hess the film director it would be a keep, but alas it's not. Pburka (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've reconsidered. If he were a NFL player who'd played one game or a driver who'd competed in one Indy 500 I'd say keep, as per WP:BIO. So 90 seconds in UFC should probably be treated accordingly. Not a fan, but it seems to be at least as legitimate as professional boxing. Pburka (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not much notability, along with above reasons. Ohmpandya   ( Talk )  01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Competitor in one of the first 5 UFC (the ones still based on tournament format with Royce took part in) Needs improved sourcing, I have a book that should help,(ISBN 0806526572, link) but will need to have a look at it for exact ref & can't do that from work. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Hess is notable for being one of the first UFC competitors, and part of the history of MMA. Sherdog itself is a reliable source, though the Sherdog forums are not. I agree that the article has major PoV issues, but those can be corrected. EmperorFedor (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are both great reasons to mention him in the articles UFC and MMA. But his notability, in his own right, has to be established. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Nate1481(t/c) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - as it currently is, the article is of unacceptably low quality. It might be salvageable, but if no-one does the job by the deadline of this AfD, it might as well be removed. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That doesn't seem like a good idea. Many people, myself included, would be interested in cleanup on an article such as this, but won't put time and energy into it only to see the work on improving the article ignored and the deletion meet consensus.  If the article can be cleaned up to acceptable standard, it should not be deleted.  The proper thing (in my opinion) is to vote Keep, and renominate if no progress has been made in a few months, on the theory that maybe it can't be cleaned up after all. gnfnrf (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment: this is why I stated neutral - the article deserves a chance, but it has been on the project for 10 months and this is all we have. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As it stands, the subject clearly passes the Athletics criteria in WP:BIO. Countless articles have a strongly formed consensus in a variety of sports that ANY experience in the top professional events (NBA, MLB, etc) automatically confers notability.  Hundreds of articles on baseball players exist based solely on their entries in statblocks, with no other sources.  This subject, on the other hand, has sources documenting his fights (of which there are many) and a feature article from a prominent industry reliable news source about the subject.  Now, I know that the argument above is not well received at AFD, but hear me out.  I am not saying that because some articles on baseball players exist that an article on Jon Hess should exist.  I am saying that, because a consensus formed around other sports articles to include with any "fully professional" experience, that that consensus should apply to all sports.  The feature article is just a bonus.  Now, why a weak keep?  Because I personally don't agree with that consensus.  I think that many baseball players who are just a line of statistics should not have articles.  I also think that, if any UFC veterans do not warrant articles, Jon Hess is near the top of the list.  But, the consensus as I see it doesn't say that, and I try to accept longstanding consensus.gnfnrf (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With no offense to the MMA fans who edit Wikipedia and will likely see this AfD, but the UFC is not on the same level as MLB, the NBA, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That point aside, WP:BIO just says "fully professional," which is hard to dispute about the UFC. gnfnrf (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, these are guidelines. 1:32 of time in a non-mainstream sport, for a person who is otherwise unremarkable - I don't think this qualifies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * About average at the time, and you saying he is less notable to wining quickly? He broke his hand or could potential have doubled it or more. The critical difference is your comparing it to fixed period sports, modern MMA only lasts 15 minuets maximum (for a normal fight), short compared to a football or basketball game. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that's one minute, thirty two sections cumulative. All of his fights. Ever. Added up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keep - Subject passes notability criteria for MMA. --Mista-X (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you referring to some specific, community-accepted criteria for MMA? If so, please direct us to these criteria. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already been pointed out by others. --Mista-X (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Generally, when expressing an opinion of keep, delete, merge, etc, based only on someone else's previous statements, we say "keep per User X." That way, it is understood that you are not introducing a new rationale (as I mistakenly thought you were). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Question to "keep" voters referring to WP:BIO. All of you are citing the following passage under "Athletes" that reads:
 * Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports...
 * and I was well aware of that policy, but you seemed to have (perhaps unintentionally) selectively read that passage. In its entirety, it actually also states:
 * ...(who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
 * and that's why this article is still subject to deletion, even if he has technically competed in a professional sport. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments referring to MLB, the NFL, etc. don't seem to carry weight when someone who plays 2 minutes in the NBA might still be the subject of multiple reliable independent sources, whereas Hess is not, and that should be the only article in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ???? It's not selective reading.  He competed professionally, not as an amateur.  The first bullet point, which is being cited, does not have such a parenthetical notation.  I also note that wp:bio only requires multiple sources if the coverage is  not substantial, and I believe that the Sherdog feature article which discusses Jon Hess's career and aspirations in depth meets all the criteria given in the first sentence after the lead.  It is published, secondary, reliable, and intellectually independent.  If you are stuck on multiple, even though it is not required, it is trivial to change the sherdog reference of his record to his Full Contact Fighter profile (here http://fcfighter.brinkster.net/fighter.asp?FighterID=8403).  I don't think it is necessary, however, since bio does not actually ask for multiple sourcing unless the source is not substantial. gnfnrf (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I misread this point. However, articles still require reliable sources and non-trivial coverage, and I still believe that you would be hard-pressed to find coverage that truly demonstrates that this person is notable in any way (the same profile that appears on a handful of MMA sites, who list the record of all fighters ever - that's not substantial coverage, you might as well start citing baseball cards in baseball articles). --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:BIO, regarding athlete-specific guidelines: meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The substantial coverage is not the profile. The substantial coverage is the sherdog article, cited in the wp article.  This one here. http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=2416  I just don't understand how this doesn't meet the reliable and nontrivial requirements.  I also point out that many baseball articles which have a consensus against deletion (I've seen the AfDs) have nothing more than baseball card style information. gnfnrf (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and the substantial coverage comes from a single source, which was my point. All other sources provide trivial coverage (trivial coverage that is repeated in Sherdog anyway). Switching one trivial source to another does not change that there is only a single source of any substantial coverage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (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.