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.  JGHowes  talk 01:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Nurmagomedov

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Usman Nurmagomedov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and fails GNG for the fights are routine reports. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. I have copied the content to your sandbox - see User:Nearlyevil665/sandbox. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. No worries. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: MMA is not my area of interest. So consider me an intruder here. But your statement "The BBC article is an interview piece of the subject and thus it is not independent soruce." caught my attention. Could you please elaborate a little on this. I mean I do not understand how the BBC piece is "not [an] independent source" i.e., "independent of the subject" of this article. Is this because the piece is an interview? Best. Mosesheron (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Thank you for the question. When a source content is derived from and interview with the subject/subject associate, that make the source not independent because the info/content comes from the subject themselves. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: I still do not get your point. Perhaps a failure on my part. But I mean if "a source content is derived from [an] interview with the subject/subject associate", that may not be considered WP:SECONDARY as far as the "content" coming from that source is concerned. But how does that frustrate WP:SIGCOV and make the source "not independent"? Mosesheron (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Primary sources are those of first-hand information on a topic, creative texts, experiment results, historical documents and etc. Independent sources /third party sources are those without of any direct influence with the subjects involved/view. A source is considered secondary if it contains an analysis, synthesis, discussion, evaluation etc. of primary sources. SIGCOV "significant coverage - subject is covered by sources in length and in details and not passing mentioned. The above BBC source is reliable but not independent. This is a AfD discussion. I think we would leave the discussion of type of sources discussion here. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, there's a thing about the corresponding criterions that is going under the radar- passing WP:NMMA can validate a fighter notable but its not vice-versa, i.e. failing the aforementioned criteria "is not the last word on the notability of a subject" and thus it cannot prove Usman non-notable. P.S. it should be noted that WP:GNG has a slightly higher importance than any other criterions which comes naturally from it being a set of "general guideline". Generally, we don't find subjects that pass GNG and not SSG because passing GNG demands a little more. So this looks pretty clear to me- it should be kept.
Please note that i haven't voted it a strong keep so there must be some scope of deletion based on any factor like content verifiability. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I appreciate your contribution to this discussion I reverted your latest edit to the article as the website linked looked like providing pirated recordings of UFC and Bellator fights. If I'm wrong please feel free to put those back in, but I had to act as per WP:BOLD. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe. My only motive was to provide a source that referenced the time of the third fight. I think that's clear now. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at WP:GOOGLEHITS to see that the number of google hits has no bearing on WP notablility. The fact that you edited 140 AfD discussions in a 24 hour period leads me to believe you didn't put much effort into your research on any of those topics. In addition, those make up a large number of your edits and I would suggest you start more slowly and familiarize with WP criteria such as WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. WP:NOTAVOTE explains that AfD discussions are passed on WP based arguments and not just votes. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The editors's who voted as keep almost fails to explain under which of the notability guidelines does the subject pass as a notable fighter. So relisting once again to generate more consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More