Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMA Lab


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

MMA Lab

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. Most of the sources are from UFC which is not and independent sources for the owner of the gym are related/affiliated to UFC. The rest of the sources are about other fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG  Cassiopeia  talk  22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia   talk  22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia   talk  22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia   talk  22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment - If it helps, I have removed all UFC.com sources and replaced them. -Imcdc (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are some independent sources that focus on the gym itself, although most of the mentions are in passing. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete in my opinion this fails GNG. --Suarez Mason (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Question I'll admit I usually comment on biographies and not companies, so I may not have a good grasp on WP:NORG. Would someone please explain why these sources don't qualify towards meeting WP:GNG? ,,,   I admit they're not all great references, but they're not nothing either. Admittedly, interviews take up a large portion of these articles. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: All the four sources there are considered not independent and not reliable because the article info are from the subject(s) who related to the MMA Lab in the from of "interview" which means the info are getting from the involved /affiliated subject even thought the website is not affiliated to the MMA lab. Sources need to be independent, reliable and covered the subject in depth (not the ppl but the company since this is a org/company article (the gym) in depth and in lenght and not only passing mentioned.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  22:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not necessary true. I checked and all the 4 sources provided by Papaursa  have commentary other than quotations or interviews. The parts that are interview or quotations cannot be used, but journalist commentary can be used. It is presumed that when a journalist writes an article based on an interview that it has been validated and no longer primary, so even if the original info was from an interview, but it is not presented in an interview format, then it can be used. Caphadouk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources above are interview peices. If the interview section is a small amount then that can be used. But this is not the case. Info gathered are from the subject who related to the article in mentioned. Notability need secondary sources - "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" When the sources info are based on interview and amount a great deal from the person related to the article then it is not an independent source. This is a corp/company article and NCORP is one of the very strict notability in Wikipedia and not a mma gym would just be notable in regardless there are a few good fighters train there.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - There exists enough coverage to meet notability. See my comment above. Caphadouk (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Independent sources are not sufficiently in-depth to establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient SIGCOV to pass NCORP.  SN54129  17:15, 12 February 2022 (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.