Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Wain


 * 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. The recent trend has been to delete unsourced BLPs and this is a cleatly barely notable individual where there is not much in the way of sourcing. There are two applicable guidelines, GNG and ATHLETE as well as a local consensus on a wikiproject that does not have wide consensus. In the heirarchy of guidelines N/GNG is senior to ATHLETE and what we have remains essentially an unsourced BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Neil Wain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable fighter. Fought 1 fight for a major production and was knocked out in 90 seconds, then didn't fight again for 15+ months. Clearly not "fully professional" so he fails WP:ATH. More importantly, he fails the MMA fighter notability criteria at WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well he clearly is fully professional, considering he's got a professional record, so I'd be careful about choice of words here. Has also fought once at the VERY top level. Whether he got KOd in a certain amount of time is irrelevant, as he still competed in the UFC. Has also fought a notable in Broughton and is still fighting now, where he's progressed to the next round of the Abu Dhabi tournament. However, a strict reading of WP:MMANOT fails him. Taking all of that into account, I'm going with neutral, leaning towards keep. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete IMO, a handful of fights, only one of which is in a notable promotion doesn't qualify as fully professional.  (Professional yes, not fully.)  Google search is a repetition of fighter profiles/records and stories about his one UFC fight.  Not notable, IMO.  --TreyGeek (talk)
 * My own view on this phrase is that you're either professional or you're not. I don't think there's levels. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I once played disc golf at a tournament in a professional division (as opposed to an amateur division). Therefore, you would consider me a professional disc golf player.  However, I made little money and didn't make a living at it.  Therefore, I wouldn't be a fully professional disc golf player.  --TreyGeek (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Professional should not just be the level, but also how if they make their living out of it. Also a this was also an under-card/peliminary fight (even though it was aired) so agian leaning towards not TOP level, i.e. main card, v few fighers have only one appearnce and that's main card unless they already fought in other high level promotions (pride/dream/strike force) before coming to the UFC. --Natet/c 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. He competed at the top level of his sport, which I feel meets WP:ATH.  A baseball player that makes one major league start is notable, so is a fighter who has one fight at the top level.  Movementarian (Talk) 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete; one source and the only info is his record. Skating on the boarder of notability due to opponents only. The lack of sources mean it has little potential for improvement beyond just his record. --Natet/c 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He fails the notability criteria at MMA notability. What would happen if he was a major league baseball player is irrelevant.  He also doesn't meet WP:Ath. Astudent0 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it is important to remember that WP:MMANOT is not policy and not absolute.  Your assertion that he fails WP:ATH is incorrect.  He fought in one fight at the fully professional level, ergo he competed at the fully professional level, ergo he qualifies under point no. 1.  Movementarian (Talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would claim (and have before) that "fully professional" means you're making a living at it. By that criteria, he's never been fully professional.  This discussion as well as the ones for WP:MMANOT have taken place at the topic's talk page.  You're right that it's not absolute, but it does reflect the consensus of those most interested (and familiar) with the topic.  I've been paid for things I've written, but I don't consider myself a professional writer. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have is financials available, so I can't speak to whether he is solely supported by fighting. I take it to mean an appearance at the top level, which he has done.  I'll admit this is a weak case, but some parity should be achieved for sports related bios.  Competing, however briefly, at the top level is pretty standard across the board.  I see no reason why that shouldn't be applied here.  Movementarian (Talk) 05:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he went over 15 months without fighting, I'd say it was safe to say it wasn't his livelihood. As far as being consistent, the criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) says "Olympic medalist" or "Finalist, especially a repeated one, in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations".  That seems a bit more than having one fight, so he doesn't meet the criteria for MMA fighters or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was trying to be funny with the financials comment.  The WP:MANOTE seems more in keeping with the general guideline for amateur sport.  I think this one could be argued either way.  Going back to baseball, anyone that appears in the MLB gets in.  I'll admit it is a low bar, but it isn't like we are running out of space.  Movementarian  (talk)  14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I enjoyed the financials comment. FYI--My experience is that most martial arts competitions don't differentiate between amateur and professional.  There's generally prize money at even the smallest events.  That's why the real criteria is competing at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making sure I didn't offend. Sometimes jokes don't travel well through cyberspace.  I see where you are coming from and I think our disagreement really comes down to the word "compete".  I see the intent as including anyone that has appeared at the top level of their sport.  I would like to see this addressed in a wider forum at WP:NSPORTS.  Two of us going back and forth isn't exactly creating consensus.  Movementarian  (talk)  03:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts, Baseball is (I will grugingly admit) more popular than MMA (for now...) so the same bar is not as relevant; that said I also think that the bar for many sports of 'play 10 minutes as a substitute' at pro level is way too low. --Natet/c 10:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think the popularity of a sport has anything to do with notability.  The bar for athletes is low, but this guy meets WP:ATH.  Movementarian  (talk)  22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

*Weak Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE. moreno oso (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE as the subject fought at the highest level of his sport. moreno oso (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The discussion at WP:NSPORT convinces me that the standards of the people involved with the particular sport should carry more weight and the WP:ATH is too vague. Therefore, I defer to WP:MMANOT and vote delete. 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (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.