Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Dias (mixed martial artist)


 * 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. JoelleJay's interpretation of GNG is spot-on per sitewide consensus, and is sufficiently supported in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Rafael Dias (mixed martial artist)

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he has only one fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep He passes WP:MMABIO as he fought in the WEC three times and Bellator once. 4 top tier fights is enough to pass.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Delete He does have four top tier fights, so he meets the criteria at WP:NMMA, though it would make things easier if he'd won more than one of them. I said my vote was weak because of the lack of significant coverage I saw on him.  What I saw was just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I usually defer to the SNG, but based on JoelleJay's original comment, I went searching for more info. Rafael Dias is not an uncommon name, but I focused on MMA fighters and was not able to find sources that I believe show WP:GNG is met. That is why I changed my vote. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. NMMA doesn't matter if there isn't GNG sourcing. Can someone provide the three best IRS SIGCOV articles on him? JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. A news search turned up nothing substantive, just routine match accounts and results. MMA is subordinate to GNG so his meeting the former is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense, by your logic we might aswell go and deleted hundreds of pages that meet WP:MMANOT but don't meet WP:GNG, because there are alot that don't. Why even create specific guidelines for MMA fighters if they don't mean anything?  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 09:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ...Yes, we should delete all the MMA articles that don't meet GNG. MMANOT, like all NSPORT guidelines, is intended to predict whether an article will meet GNG*, it does not directly confer notability. It allows editors to create articles based on database refs that confirm a subject meets a sport-specific guideline (and therefore is predicted to meet GNG) without having to demonstrate notability (through SIGCOV refs) from the get-go like other articles do; but once an article is challenged editors must prove the subject actually does meet GNG.
 * * The very first sentence of NSPORT is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. See also the first section of NSPORT: ...the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. And the FAQs collapsed at the top of NSPORT: Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline..., Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..., Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.... JoelleJay (talk) 03:36, 13 December 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.