Rin Nakai – Endorse close, but relist. The consensus here seems to be that the AfD close was fine (personally, with only 2 IP comments, I would have probably relisted, but that's just me), but later events have transpired which might establish notability. I'm going to restore the 12:33, 4 December 2013 version, as later versions are just stubs. If anybody wants to do a more complete merge, the history is there, so go ahead. I'm also going to relist this on AfD, to get a clean opinion on the current state of notability. As a side note, agree with SmokeyJoe's advice to the IP editors to register accounts. There's nothing that says you can't edit anonymously, but as a practical matter, registering an account makes it way easier to interact with the rest of the community. – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rin Nakai (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) I believe the initial deletion review had problems and should be reviewed. The subject of this article is notable, and was unfairly deleted without a thorough and accurate review of its notability. The person who brought this article up for deletion grossly misrepresented the fighting history of the fighter. "Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp" This is completely made up and untrue: if you examine her fight history, she had already participated in 16 fights by Dec 2013, when the article was nominated for deletion. Her fight history by that time included a win against Tara LaRosa[1], a fighter who was notable enough to have a rather extensive article on Wikipedia. Since then, she has defeated Sarah D'Alelio[2], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia. She is also now scheduled to fight Miesha Tate[3], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia. This fighter is undefeated, extremely popular in Japan[4], the #1 fighter in her weight class in Japan, the current title holder in her weight class in Japan (per a Wikipedia article) [5], having held the title since Dec '12 (per another Wikipedia article) [6], and the #10 fighter overall internationally in her weight class [7][8] (All of the other fighters in her weight class in the top 10 have their own article). This fighter is notable enough to have articles on her in 5 different editions of Wikipedia, the most extensive of which, unsurprisingly, comes from the JPN Wikipedia [9] - there's been an article on her since 2009 in the JPN Wikipedia. If you check the article views, it jumped to 444 recently, which is unsurprising since readers probably came here to search for information on this fighter due to her upcoming fight against Miesha Tate[10]. This notability has crossed international boundaries: there are articles in Greek[11] and Portuguese[12] making references to this fighter. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been re-deleted on that same day by an admin who didn't bother to check or investigate whether the fighter had become more notable since the last deletion of this article, which, of course she has. I believe there's more than sufficient evidence to show that this fighter is notable, so the article on this person should be restored. 123.193.40.25 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the AfD, obviously. Advise the IP to register, declare any WP:COIs, and write a userspace draft before coming here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I believe that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia[13]. I did not come here with a hidden agenda. I searched for info on this fighter due to the recent publicity, and was genuinely surprised to find that this article was deleted for non-notability and wished to bring this issue up in front of a larger audience to review the merits of this article, especially since the article was condemned with minimal participation in its original deletion discussion. Although I've made many bureaucratic filing errors in pursuit of trying to bring wider recognition to this issue (errors which were not helped by the bureaucratic complexity of Wikipedia), that shouldn't invalidate the merit of the argument and evidence that I've brought forth to support the notability of this article. I've brought forth what I consider valid arguments in support for the validity of this article - the only argument that you've used to support your position is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on my credibility.123.193.40.25 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Where there is a clear deletion decision, and someone brings new sources, it is usual for that person to create a draft to show what the article looks like. It makes it much easier for you, and for us. You can use AfC, but it is much easier, for you, if you register and use your own userspace. There is nothing "wrong" with having a COI, only with not declaring it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] It's a bit odd to ask someone who's suspected of having a COI to re-write the article and re-submit it for approval. I would think that it would be more appropriate for me to end my involvement at that point and allow more neutral parties to re-write the article. As I mentioned earlier, I have no particular interest in this article. It appeared to my un-trained eyes that this article was obviously notable, and that other people would probably run into the same scenario when searching for info on this article, so I wanted to post a notice somewhere to alert someone on a possible mistake in judgement in this case. Apparently, I'm mistaken, since it appears that the consensus is in support of the original deletion. I have no interest in forcing my own opinions on others. If you guys are happy with the situation here, then I'll just accept that reality and move on as there are much more interesting things to do with my time. I have no further interest in this article, so I withdraw my original petition and you guys can just go ahead and close this case123.193.40.25 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Having a COI (depending on the degree) doesn't mean you can't write the article. Are you the subject, her manager, or her promoter? This nomination was a little confusing. Firstly, it referenced a "deleteion review" which I couldn't find. Secondly, it was unclear as to whether you wanted to protest/overturn the AfD. Thirdly, you appear to want permission to recreate the article on the basis of newly found sources. Shall we agree to ignore the first two, and just discuss the third. You had a brief discussion with the AfD closer, received advice, and ignored it to come here. The advice you already received was good. I have essentially given the same advice, though with stronger encouragement to register. I agree, on the basis of some of your sources, and on a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article, that this person looks notable, and that the AfD was perfunctory. Your interest in this subject is to be assumed on the basis of you bringing it to DRV. I would like to encourage you to register, and to write and improve the article, but if you have no further interest, I'm sorry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I am inclined to support undeletion/recreation per nom, noting the low level participation and discussion at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just restore the article Mr SmokeyJoe... Not the little one but the bigger one from 4th December 2013. It's accurate, lists her multiple Pancrase fights (WP only requires 3 for her to be considered notable) and there was an obvious error in judgement by the <<self-censored>> person who deleted the thing in the first place!! This should be a no-brainer - Especially given the obvious public interest that the upcoming bout is generating ffs!! * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I support restoring the deleted content. Deletion can be discussed later at AfD if someone wants to. The decision to restore (undelete) now rests with the closer of this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment Previous DRV was not completed fully, so it looks like the robot automatically removed the "empty" page from the active list. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] A bot incorrectly removed the page from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. I have fixed the syntax errors on the page and added it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. One of the discussions should be closed so that people do not discuss the same thing at multiple places. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored or discussion DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the AFD as decisive and correctly closed, but permit recreation if a draft which makes her notability clear can be presented. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply] Overturn the ((db-repost)) deletion*. At the time of the deletion at 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC) by Malik Shabazz, the article noted that the subject was signed to the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Wikipedia's article about the UFC says it is "the largest mixed martial arts promotion company in the world, which hosts all of the top-ranked fighters in the sport and produces events worldwide." Rin Nakai's signing with the UFC occurred after the December 2013 AfD was closed as delete. Source: According to this article^WebCite (titled "UFC signs Japanese female MMA star Rin Nakai to fight Miesha Tate") published 15 July 2014 in News.com.au calls the subject "THE UFC's latest signing". At the time of the ((db-repost)) deletion, the article created by Dwanyewest (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2014‎ cited "Rin Nakai Is the UFC’s Latest and Most Exciting Fighter" from Vice* and "Fight between Miesha Tate, debuting Rin Nakai targeted for UFC Japan event" from Foxsports.com. Based on these changes, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion was not applicable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rin Nakai was a defective discussion. As SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) noted, the AfD had "low level participation and discussion". Excluding the nominator, there were only two participants at the AfD: 204.126.132.231 (talk · contribs) and 173.171.115.72 (talk · contribs). Both cited the subject's failure of WP:NMMA in supporting deletion. Their analysis did not analyze whether the article's 42 references were sufficient or insufficient sources. For example, why is "Yasuko Tamada Captures Flyweight Title, Rin Nakai moves to 7-0 at Valkyrie"^WebCite from mmafighting.com, which is published by SB Nation, not considered a reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject? http://www.mmafighting.com/masthead^WebCite indicates the website has editorial oversight. The lack of substantive discussion about the sources indicates the discussion was defective. But the closure was within administrative discretion (though a relist would have been a much better decision), so I endorse Callanecc's close. I am unsure if the sources here are sufficient to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But based on the change in circumstances (Rin Nakai's signing by the UFC) and the defective AfD discussion, I recommend that the DRV closer relist this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rin Nakai (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] If the closer decides to relist this at AfD, please merge the 4 December 2013 version (deleted at AfD) and the 6 July 2014 version (deleted per ((db-repost))) when restoring the content. The first version contains many sources and the second contains the new UFC content, so both should be presented to the AfD community. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Relist I think that Cunard is right in assessing that the first and second revisions should be merged. XiuBouLin (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rin Nakai – Endorse close, but relist. The consensus here seems to be that the AfD close was fine (personally, with only 2 IP comments, I would have probably relisted, but that's just me), but later events have transpired which might establish notability. I'm going to restore the 12:33, 4 December 2013 version, as later versions are just stubs. If anybody wants to do a more complete merge, the history is there, so go ahead. I'm also going to relist this on AfD, to get a clean opinion on the current state of notability. As a side note, agree with SmokeyJoe's advice to the IP editors to register accounts. There's nothing that says you can't edit anonymously, but as a practical matter, registering an account makes it way easier to interact with the rest of the community. – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe the initial deletion review had problems and should be reviewed.

The subject of this article is notable, and was unfairly deleted without a thorough and accurate review of its notability. The person who brought this article up for deletion grossly misrepresented the fighting history of the fighter. "Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp" This is completely made up and untrue: if you examine her fight history, she had already participated in 16 fights by Dec 2013, when the article was nominated for deletion. Her fight history by that time included a win against Tara LaRosa[1], a fighter who was notable enough to have a rather extensive article on Wikipedia.

Since then, she has defeated Sarah D'Alelio[2], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia. She is also now scheduled to fight Miesha Tate[3], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia.

This fighter is undefeated, extremely popular in Japan[4], the #1 fighter in her weight class in Japan, the current title holder in her weight class in Japan (per a Wikipedia article) [5], having held the title since Dec '12 (per another Wikipedia article) [6], and the #10 fighter overall internationally in her weight class [7][8] (All of the other fighters in her weight class in the top 10 have their own article).

This fighter is notable enough to have articles on her in 5 different editions of Wikipedia, the most extensive of which, unsurprisingly, comes from the JPN Wikipedia [9] - there's been an article on her since 2009 in the JPN Wikipedia.

If you check the article views, it jumped to 444 recently, which is unsurprising since readers probably came here to search for information on this fighter due to her upcoming fight against Miesha Tate[10]. This notability has crossed international boundaries: there are articles in Greek[11] and Portuguese[12] making references to this fighter. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been re-deleted on that same day by an admin who didn't bother to check or investigate whether the fighter had become more notable since the last deletion of this article, which, of course she has.

I believe there's more than sufficient evidence to show that this fighter is notable, so the article on this person should be restored. 123.193.40.25 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AfD, obviously. Advise the IP to register, declare any WP:COIs, and write a userspace draft before coming here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia[13]. I did not come here with a hidden agenda. I searched for info on this fighter due to the recent publicity, and was genuinely surprised to find that this article was deleted for non-notability and wished to bring this issue up in front of a larger audience to review the merits of this article, especially since the article was condemned with minimal participation in its original deletion discussion. Although I've made many bureaucratic filing errors in pursuit of trying to bring wider recognition to this issue (errors which were not helped by the bureaucratic complexity of Wikipedia), that shouldn't invalidate the merit of the argument and evidence that I've brought forth to support the notability of this article. I've brought forth what I consider valid arguments in support for the validity of this article - the only argument that you've used to support your position is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on my credibility.123.193.40.25 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is a clear deletion decision, and someone brings new sources, it is usual for that person to create a draft to show what the article looks like. It makes it much easier for you, and for us. You can use AfC, but it is much easier, for you, if you register and use your own userspace. There is nothing "wrong" with having a COI, only with not declaring it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd to ask someone who's suspected of having a COI to re-write the article and re-submit it for approval. I would think that it would be more appropriate for me to end my involvement at that point and allow more neutral parties to re-write the article. As I mentioned earlier, I have no particular interest in this article. It appeared to my un-trained eyes that this article was obviously notable, and that other people would probably run into the same scenario when searching for info on this article, so I wanted to post a notice somewhere to alert someone on a possible mistake in judgement in this case. Apparently, I'm mistaken, since it appears that the consensus is in support of the original deletion. I have no interest in forcing my own opinions on others. If you guys are happy with the situation here, then I'll just accept that reality and move on as there are much more interesting things to do with my time. I have no further interest in this article, so I withdraw my original petition and you guys can just go ahead and close this case123.193.40.25 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having a COI (depending on the degree) doesn't mean you can't write the article. Are you the subject, her manager, or her promoter?

This nomination was a little confusing. Firstly, it referenced a "deleteion review" which I couldn't find. Secondly, it was unclear as to whether you wanted to protest/overturn the AfD. Thirdly, you appear to want permission to recreate the article on the basis of newly found sources. Shall we agree to ignore the first two, and just discuss the third.

You had a brief discussion with the AfD closer, received advice, and ignored it to come here. The advice you already received was good. I have essentially given the same advice, though with stronger encouragement to register.

I agree, on the basis of some of your sources, and on a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article, that this person looks notable, and that the AfD was perfunctory.

Your interest in this subject is to be assumed on the basis of you bringing it to DRV. I would like to encourage you to register, and to write and improve the article, but if you have no further interest, I'm sorry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to support undeletion/recreation per nom, noting the low level participation and discussion at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Just restore the article Mr SmokeyJoe... Not the little one but the bigger one from 4th December 2013. It's accurate, lists her multiple Pancrase fights (WP only requires 3 for her to be considered notable) and there was an obvious error in judgement by the <<self-censored>> person who deleted the thing in the first place!! This should be a no-brainer - Especially given the obvious public interest that the upcoming bout is generating ffs!! *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support restoring the deleted content. Deletion can be discussed later at AfD if someone wants to. The decision to restore (undelete) now rests with the closer of this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous DRV was not completed fully, so it looks like the robot automatically removed the "empty" page from the active list. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A bot incorrectly removed the page from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. I have fixed the syntax errors on the page and added it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. One of the discussions should be closed so that people do not discuss the same thing at multiple places. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored or discussion DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD as decisive and correctly closed, but permit recreation if a draft which makes her notability clear can be presented. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn the ((db-repost)) deletion. At the time of the deletion at 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC) by Malik Shabazz, the article noted that the subject was signed to the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Wikipedia's article about the UFC says it is "the largest mixed martial arts promotion company in the world, which hosts all of the top-ranked fighters in the sport and produces events worldwide."
Rin Nakai's signing with the UFC occurred after the December 2013 AfD was closed as delete. Source: According to this article^WebCite (titled "UFC signs Japanese female MMA star Rin Nakai to fight Miesha Tate") published 15 July 2014 in News.com.au calls the subject "THE UFC's latest signing".
At the time of the ((db-repost)) deletion, the article created by Dwanyewest (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2014‎ cited "Rin Nakai Is the UFC’s Latest and Most Exciting Fighter" from Vice and "Fight between Miesha Tate, debuting Rin Nakai targeted for UFC Japan event" from Foxsports.com. Based on these changes, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion was not applicable.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rin Nakai was a defective discussion. As SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) noted, the AfD had "low level participation and discussion". Excluding the nominator, there were only two participants at the AfD: 204.126.132.231 (talk · contribs) and 173.171.115.72 (talk · contribs). Both cited the subject's failure of WP:NMMA in supporting deletion. Their analysis did not analyze whether the article's 42 references were sufficient or insufficient sources.
For example, why is "Yasuko Tamada Captures Flyweight Title, Rin Nakai moves to 7-0 at Valkyrie"^WebCite from mmafighting.com, which is published by SB Nation, not considered a reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject? http://www.mmafighting.com/masthead^WebCite indicates the website has editorial oversight. The lack of substantive discussion about the sources indicates the discussion was defective.
But the closure was within administrative discretion (though a relist would have been a much better decision), so I endorse Callanecc's close.
I am unsure if the sources here are sufficient to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But based on the change in circumstances (Rin Nakai's signing by the UFC) and the defective AfD discussion, I recommend that the DRV closer relist this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rin Nakai (2nd nomination).
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer decides to relist this at AfD, please merge the 4 December 2013 version (deleted at AfD) and the 6 July 2014 version (deleted per ((db-repost))) when restoring the content. The first version contains many sources and the second contains the new UFC content, so both should be presented to the AfD community. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I think that Cunard is right in assessing that the first and second revisions should be merged. XiuBouLin (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.