Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Winslow


 * 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. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the higher standard needed for a BLP. Seddon talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Kim Winslow

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Isn't notable besides being the first ever female UFC referee, and one of the worst MMA referees ever.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per nominator. Furius (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. "Per nominator" means you agree with the nomination, but your vote is the opposite. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's his way of saying that the topic's '1st ever female' and 'worst ever' statuses, as acknowledged by the nominator, already prove the subject is notable – a lazy and derisive dismissal of the nomination, with no attempt to back his own argument with sources. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not every claimed first x to do y makes one notable. We actually need reliable secondary indepdent sources covering it to show it is something that is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Disregard - this comment was made by a now-blocked editor (for sock-puppetry and disruption) just 1 minute after their comment at a different AFD. They couldn't possibly have conducted a search for sources and their track record suggests an entirely different reason for seeking this article's deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor was unblocked at the time he voted and is currently unblocked. That's not a valid reason to throw out his vote, though your point about the speed of his vote is worth considering. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus, although the argument for deletion looks more convincing
 * Keep - being the first woman to serve as a referee of a notable sport is absolutely a solid claim to notability in and of itself. But that - and criticism of her - means there is plenty of significant coverage of her including this, this follow-up to that (and this one), things like this, and various dirt-sheets critical of her work as a referee. Significant coverage doesn't mean "significant positive coverage" and while that is unfortunate for the subject, I don't think notability is in question.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - first woman referee in a very notable sport which is very very male-dominated is notable. And infamy is notable - if we say "one of the best" is notable, then so is "one of the worst". --Xurizuri (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete you would think being the first woman referee of MMA would be notable, but there are no reliable sources that cover this in any depth. The sources linked above are horrible. A sensationalised headline in the bleacher report, which is basically a published rant from a dissatisfied fighter. The rest are worse. This is a BLP and we require much better sources than have been presented here to justify holding an article on someone. Not to mention given the nomination statement above it is an article likely to attract numerous BLP violations. Aircorn (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:1E. I also endorse Aircorn's comment above. Most of the sources are fluff except for the last one, fighthype, which, as an interview, is not independent of the subject and is too personal to be considered encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where is the GNG coverage? And especially if the existing coverage is negative we need to have strong sourcing for inclusion of that material in a BLP -- which this bio certainly does not have. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I thought it would be easy to show she's WP notable, but there is a lack of significant independent coverage. My search found lots of comments, overwhelmingly negative, but they're from unreliable or not independent sources.  I don't agree with the "first x to do y is notable argument", unless the subject meets WP:GNG--and I don't think that's true in this case. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (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.