Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisuke Andrew


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Keisuke Andrew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, no significant coverage, and nothing to show his grappling meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - His notability is as a martial artist under WP:WPMA not as an MMA fighter under WP:MMABIO. His MMA career is tangential to overall notability. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see how - please explain.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You certainly know WP:WPMA as well as anyone Mr. Rehse. What seems confusing about this? The notability suggestions for MMA fighters and martial artists generally is vastly different. One could even argue his notability as an instructor, but there are admittedly less online citations available for that. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just don't see notability as a martial artist that would take precedence over his MMA record.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which, in light of all the current notability essays on MMA, seems the least bit absurd, given that despite having a well-sourced, undefeated record at both the amateur and professional MMA level, his MMA notability amounts to zero here. So virtually anything substantiating notability would take precedence over his MMA record. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So which criteria under WP:MANOTE are you saying he meets and what are the sources? Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw this; it was hidden by the sorting tags. Look, I know what's going to happen here. We are going to spend forever citing and debating these essays ad nauseam. How about this; in the spirit of the new user's comment below and to cut to the chase, let's just look at the actual, established policy. As the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, his article satisfies the basic criteria of the GNG. Since the GNG supersedes the whole panoply of essays, what more is there to debate? Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Wp:WPMA/N appears to be an essay not policy. So it defaults to GNG if not WP:MMABIO Neonchameleon (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't made a policy because it was deemed to be too much trouble and there was strong consensus about its content. Since most of your edits are within the past month, I consider you a new editor and would point out that even essays can be used in AfD discussions and that this particular set of criteria has been used in hundreds of AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Careful now, in the wrong context some new editors might read the above paragraph as a WP:BITE. I think we can all agree that it's nice to see a relatively new editor not just assume that every WP:SHORTCUT is an invocation of authoritative policy. It's probably why someone went to all the trouble to write WP:NOTPOLICY. That said, Papaursa speaks much wisdom here; notability essays "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion". Whether or not they should be used as the precipitating reason for the actual nomination...that's likely where my more exclusionist friends and I would agree to disagree. Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to inform, not bite. I'm happy to see new editors. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:MMABIO is an essay as well, but your point is well taken. I'd assume the governing policies here are the GNG and WP:BASIC. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete With only 2 professional MMA fights, neither of them top tier, he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Winning a regional amateur MMA title does not show notability.  There's also nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE and he lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would contend that he does meet "significant" coverage as defined by the GNG. Still, even if you disagree with that, this article is a BLP, thus more specifically subject to the guidelines of Notability (people) which clearly states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as I'd stated above. So although he might not meet any of the very high standards of presumptive notability set in the myriad of notability essays, he unquestionably meets the guideline's presumption. His notability is threefold: as an instructor, a martial artist, and, to a lesser extent, an MMA fighter. There are citations substantiating all three. Are they perfect? No. Do they rise to the basic standards set by notability guidelines? Absolutely. Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As you said earlier, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the significant independent coverage you're claiming nor do I see how you can dismiss GNG as not being relevant.  Here are my comments on the article's references:
 * 1. post fight interview after winning local amateur MMA title (arguably routine)
 * 2. list of results at local amateur MMA event (not significant)
 * 3. list of results from minor event with grandiose name (e.g., there were a combined total of 5 adult male BJJ black belts competing in the 4 divisions) (not significant)
 * 4. list of results from local grappling event (not significant)
 * 5. his bio from his school (not independent or significant)
 * 6. one line passing mention by one of his students (not independent or significant)
 * 7. list of his MMA fight record (not significant)
 * Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed my friend, said respectfully, this is perhaps a classic 'inclusionist vs exclusionist' debate. I too could go through the present sources line-for-line as well, arguing for their particular significance, but I think that would only serve to show how far our opinions differ from one another. What I will say is that while the GNG is certainly not irrelevant, there is another guideline made specifically for people. The Notability (people), as I've highlighted numerous times now. Given that this article is a BLP, I believe it to be more germane to this discussion. In it there is a basic criteria which this article meets. Now, I will concede that this article likely does not meet the very high standards of presumptive notability listed in some of the above notability essays, but it doesn't have to. Again, I respect your rigorous personal standards for what you consider a "significant" source, but once an article meets at least the basic criteria as listed in the relevant policy or guideline (and it may qualify under one of the notability essays as well), your opinion regarding what is and isn't significant is beside the point. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, neither his MMA career or his martial arts career seem to be substantial enough to make an argument for notability at this stage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:44, 26 December 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.