Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Robichaux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chad Robichaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights. He may be retired since he hasn't fought in almost a year. The sources I saw were just routine sports coverage so I don't believe he meets WP:GNG either.Mdtemp (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See commments below re "routine sports coverage."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NMMA, and since his career may be over, it's unlikely he'll meet it anytime soon. Ducknish (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He appears to have robust coverage. If he meets GNG, which a cursory look suggests he does, it is irrelevant whether he meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See commments in this afd re "GNG."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. As an aside, he had two sockpuppets which have been uncovered, who echoed his !votes at AfDs. Those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either take this to WP:SPI or quit making this comment. You're making a blanket accusation of anyone who's voted at MMA AFDs.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, its an appropriate comment for this AfD, under the circumstances. And it's not the first indef block we've had I now see of sockpuppets and sockmasters who !vote at these particular AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If Epeefleche and I are going to agree on something, then it will be the issue of sockpuppets in AfD discussions. It's very common for noted sock puppets to have their arguments struck from the discussion, or in the least, noted for the reviewing closer, as a means of identifying someone who has tried to game the system. Mkdwtalk 21:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, its an appropriate comment for this AfD, under the circumstances. And it's not the first indef block we've had I now see of sockpuppets and sockmasters who !vote at these particular AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either take this to WP:SPI or quit making this comment. You're making a blanket accusation of anyone who's voted at MMA AFDs.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. As an aside, he had two sockpuppets which have been uncovered, who echoed his !votes at AfDs. Those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can not find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which isn't enough to qualify for notability.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look even at the sources I just added to the article. They go far beyond what we discount as routine coverage. Routine coverage refers to matters such as "team x beat team y 1-0". Non-routine coverage includes things such as articles devoted to the subject. I've now reflected a number of those in the article itself. Perhaps you will take a look and reconsider.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I certainly understand User:Epeefleche's argument about a lot of coverage, but it's all focused in the first sentence of the article which means the sources mostly confirm the same thing that he's a special ops MMA fighter. This, for me, falls under WP:BOMBARDMENT. I think the issue here is that he doesn't have robust coverage about his actual career which does not meet WP:NMMA. If we're looking at WP:ANYBIO, it's not great. Mkdwtalk 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't bombardment just an essay -- which may be the opinion of only one or more editors? Also, of course (though some editors seem not to realize it) there is no requirement that he meet NMMA; though if he were to meet it, that would be sufficient. GNG is always sufficient, even in the absence of meeting NMMA.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of essays are largely cited in AfD discussions. Most notably that you would recognize that editors weight in heavily would be WP:OUTCOMES. Keep in mind that essays are merely extensions of arguments and that the arguments are the primary basis of AfD. The guidelines I have cited as grounds for deletion are WP:NMMA and WP:ANYBIO, while WP:BOMBARDMENT is my address to your argument that the article has multiple independent and reliable sources BUT when
79 of the 11 sources are in the first sentence, it as stated in BOMBARDMENT, reflects very poorly that the article itself and subject lack general assertion of notability because 90% of the article remains unsourced other than the fact that we've heavily shown he's an MMA fight, but not a notable one. Mkdwtalk 19:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- That's purely a form issue. At AfD, what is important is whether RSs exist, such as would satisfy GNG. They of course needn't even be in the article itself. That they are in the first sentence, therefore, obviously is not an AfD issue. It would suffice for them to not be in the article but merely cited at the AfD discussion, or just alluded to there and discoverable. Completely irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is a bombardment issue not a form issue. I've been very clear about that. If you don't see what's wrong with: "Chad "Robo" Robichaux (born August 18, 1975) is an American professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter and former Special Operations Force Recon, United States Marine.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" in relationship to WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:OVERCITE as a means of masking notability through run-of-the-mill and routine coverage for his events, then I cannot make myself anymore clear and will simply leave this to the general consensus which appears to be largely in favour of delete. I would also like to point out that WP:GNG directly states: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." which has been the basis of your argument -- but it appears you have not formally positioned yourself in the keep camp by !voting keep. Are you simply playing devil's advocate? Obviously you don't have to, but seems contradictory to your time and investment to the discussion not to let your formal position be openly regarded outside replies. Mkdwtalk 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an essay. The view of one or more editors. In this case, as cited, I think a simply absurd view. The refs -- even if they are not in the article -- if they meet GNG are sufficient. The fact that they are in the article is not a negative in the least. Pure common sense issue. As to my !vote, I haven't placed one, as it is not yet clear to me whether it meets GNG. But it is clear to me that the refs go toward GNG, and do not detract from it -- any suggestion otherwise is counter-intuitive. I do see that assertion, as well as they "routine coverage" assertion, to be less than firmly based, however. My interest in even looking at these AfDs is that a sockmaster !voted at them, and even aside from him MMA articles appear to have attracted an unusual degree of socking (as to why I have not myself prompted a sock investigation again, as I just did today elsewhere, I haven't yet developed a firm view, but there are others who are better at this than I am admittedly). If I develop a firm opinion either way on a !vote here, my opinion will stand as to what "routine coverage" means and as to the silliness of that/those individual(s) view as to cites in an article detracting somehow. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is a bombardment issue not a form issue. I've been very clear about that. If you don't see what's wrong with: "Chad "Robo" Robichaux (born August 18, 1975) is an American professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter and former Special Operations Force Recon, United States Marine.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" in relationship to WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:OVERCITE as a means of masking notability through run-of-the-mill and routine coverage for his events, then I cannot make myself anymore clear and will simply leave this to the general consensus which appears to be largely in favour of delete. I would also like to point out that WP:GNG directly states: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." which has been the basis of your argument -- but it appears you have not formally positioned yourself in the keep camp by !voting keep. Are you simply playing devil's advocate? Obviously you don't have to, but seems contradictory to your time and investment to the discussion not to let your formal position be openly regarded outside replies. Mkdwtalk 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's purely a form issue. At AfD, what is important is whether RSs exist, such as would satisfy GNG. They of course needn't even be in the article itself. That they are in the first sentence, therefore, obviously is not an AfD issue. It would suffice for them to not be in the article but merely cited at the AfD discussion, or just alluded to there and discoverable. Completely irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of essays are largely cited in AfD discussions. Most notably that you would recognize that editors weight in heavily would be WP:OUTCOMES. Keep in mind that essays are merely extensions of arguments and that the arguments are the primary basis of AfD. The guidelines I have cited as grounds for deletion are WP:NMMA and WP:ANYBIO, while WP:BOMBARDMENT is my address to your argument that the article has multiple independent and reliable sources BUT when
- Isn't bombardment just an essay -- which may be the opinion of only one or more editors? Also, of course (though some editors seem not to realize it) there is no requirement that he meet NMMA; though if he were to meet it, that would be sufficient. GNG is always sufficient, even in the absence of meeting NMMA.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems it never went away in full. I'm sure you're aware of all the drama that went down last year when they were trying to write the guidelines for MMA/ mass deletion of UFC events and articles. There were several ANI's and SPI's after the mainstream media heard about the conflict when it spilled out into reddit and tumblr for calls to intervene in what was happening to the MMA related articles. Mkdwtalk 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. No, actually was not familiar with that, thanks. Helps explain the phenomenon.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2013 (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.