Cathal Pendred‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural listing. Original title has been WP:SALTed and multiple individuals have contested a G4 speedy of the article at its new home, '''Cathal Pendred'''. Apparently the subject of the article has recently had a level of success that might justify an article (I lack the background to make on informed decision on this point). Working copy of new article is available at Draft:Cathal Pendred. --Allen3 ^talk 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD in March 2013 was mainly concerned with the subject not meeting WP:MMANOT which for mixed martial arts means three top tier fights. At that time there were no top tier fights but the subject has now 2 wins at top tier and a third scheduled in January. So although slightly premature I think close enough to desalt.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MMANOT is an essay so has less weight then an AFD close. I'd like to confirm that we do have the requisite reliable sourcing to meet the GNG.? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MMA-specific sites have very (very) much information on each of the fighters. As long as the narrowly focused sources are deemed acceptable (and unsurprisingly I think they are as long as they have reasonable editorial oversight and they generally do), you can meet GNG for nearly any moderately successful MMA fighter. As you can for nearly any professional soccer player etc. The GNG is rarely an issue unless you want significant coverage in mainstream sources. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked (which was a long time back) the kind of MMA fanboy sites being pushed were way below our accepted RS standards. I would expect any site that we relied upon to maintain a BLP should meet the standard degree of rigor. I'd be happy to evaluate any sources put forward by someone who wants to restore this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently found here Draft:Cathal Pendred along with the references.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Draft:Cathal Pendred to Cathal Pendred. The draft contains three reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject:
  1. Iole, Kevin (May 29, 2013). "Irish fighter Cathal Pendred eager for UFC opportunity in former hometown of Boston". Yahoo Sports.
  2. Head, Simon (March 12, 2013). "Irish Eyes are Smiling: Cathal Pendred Defeats Gael Grimaud to Claim Cage Warriors Welterweight World Title". Mirror.
  3. Erickson, Matt (July 19, 2014). "UFC Fight Night 46 results: Cathal Pendred survives first to choke out Mike King". MMA Junkie. USA Today.

     MMAjunkie.com is a news site owned by USA Today.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cathal Pendred‎ to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources do look to be enough to meet WP:N. Not real thrilled with the way the sources are cited in the article (ownership of a outlet doesn't imply the same degree of editorial control). move to article space without prejudice to a new AfD (which I think would fail, but the GNG vs SNG debate might end in deletion I suppose). Hobit (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]