Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige VanZant


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Paige VanZant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight (a loss in January, 2013). Has signed with the UFC to help start their new strawweight division, but assuming she'll get enough top tier fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Article was created WP:TOOSOON, but no objection to the article being saved to user space for when/if she meets NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy Part of a series of articles written upon UFC signing - definitely WP:TOOSOON for WP:MMANOT.  I would vote delete but within a month she would have 2 of 3.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable - Clearly fails all current criteria. Ppt1973 (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete She fails to meet WP:NMMA and I agree about WP:TOOSOON. Personally, I would have waited to put this article up for AfD until after her UFC fight.  It's true she still won't meet NMMA, but a victory would probably ensure she would get a third top tier fight (yes, that's WP:CRYSTALBALL).  I have no objections if someone wants to userfy this article in the meantime. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure about the arguments above but VanZant clearly meets the general notability guideline with reliable independent nontrivial sources here and here and here and here, plus substantive mentions here and here and here, with additional sources possible. She's the youngest fighter in UFC league, several well-covered matches not just in US but Canada, with much media coverage; article should have the bare references fleshed out a bit (clothed?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - Still fails current criteria in place for MMA notability.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But she meets the GNG. Wikipedia Notability (sports) guideline says The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria.... Since she meets GNG, she's a keeper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, she doesn't meet GNG. The first 4 sources you mentioned are all announcements of her first UFC fight (i.e., routine promotional coverage) while the other sources are one line mentions.  None of the sources provide significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that she does not meet GNC. There is a clear distinction between MMA promotional announcements and independent coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So I suppose you people would similarly say that this was a mere one-line mention. The announcements of upcoming fights were articles in major news sources, so it is hard for me to see why anybody would consider them as trivial.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC) And I suppose you'd dismiss this source too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Suppose this source would constitute another dismissable mention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While pageview statistics are not an official criterion of notability, they usually indicate it, based on my experience as a wiki-contributor, and VanZant gets 200+ pageviews per day, which to me suggests notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The 3 sources you added are another announcement of her first UFC fight (it's still routine sports promotion no matter how many sources it appears in), a site copying one of her Facebook posts, and a blog.   Still nothing to meet GNG.  As far as pageviews go, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this article which features VanZant prominently in the headline plus show her photo plus has a video report on her could possibly constitute "routine sports promotion". Or this source with VanZant in headline. This source is owned by Gannett and discusses VanZant in depth. And I fail to see how an article in the Toronto Sun which has VanZant's name in the headline could constitute 'routine coverage'. That Sports Life Magazine based part of their report from a Facebook source does not invalidate the report -- its editors would not have allowed that story if they did not think it was credible. About pageviews, yes, we know the rules, but if you ever develop a track record here at Wikipedia, you'll know that it is rare that high-pageview articles get deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Signing with the UFC, which is what the coverage is about (or announcing her first fight), is not enough to show notability. It's clear you and I disagree on this.  I don't know why I need to develop a track record (or what that even means), but I think it's more interesting that you're the only editor that thinks the article should be kept.Mdtemp (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability stems from the guideline: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. It is that simple. VanZant has it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails MMA notability criteria and coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2014 (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.