Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Ebañez


 * 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. KTC (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ross Ebañez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Jake the snake perhaps? Anyway Ross passes WP:V and WP:GNG with non-trivial refs here (SI/CNN), here, here, here, and especially here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are either the routine reporting of sports results or promotional press releases about upcoming fights. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal-Also has refs here (USA Today), here (good read), and fighting on Showtime also helps. I'd say that definitely affirms his notability using WP:SOURCES, and he is generally notable as per the WP:GNG PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and this article fails especially the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG.  Poison  Whiskey  01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment He passes every criterion. Also consider the criterion you pointed out "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". He, in fact, has that in spades as is evidenced by my numerous refs where he is either mentioned significnalty within the ref, or is the subject of the ref PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the least he meets the bare minimum for WP:GNG. He now meest WP:V as per his new WP:SOURCES I added. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones.   ✍   Mtking  ✉ 07:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Also sourcing appears to be a couple mentions in MMA media, nothing significant enough to meet WP:GNG IMO.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal As well As USAtoday and Sb nation which can pass WP:SOURCES as per WP:NEWSBLOG He also fought on Showtime PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really dislike arguing debating issues in AfD, so I'll provide only this last response. The USA Today source cited above in this AfD links to a deleted video ("Sorry, this episode is no longer available" to be more accurate) and there appears to be no text discussing Ebañez other than to say he was in the video.  I don't see an SBNation source cited in the article or in this AfD.  Fighting on Showtime (or any TV channel) is not sufficient in of itself to establish notability, IMO.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * mmamania is apart of SBnation. as it says at the top. In regards to the video being missing at the MMAjunkie/USAtoday ref I would advise you to read WP:NOTTEMPORARYPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE... --LlamaAl (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Routine coverage does not provide strong arguments against WP:NMMA. Mkdw talk 08:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject fails WP:NMMA and coverage appears to be simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2013 (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.