Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Lynch

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.

Charley Lynch

Result: Delete (non-admin closure), but the article was redirected to the Ultimate Fighter season eleven. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is pretty well written, but shows no notability. Lynch was beaten in the first round of the Ultimate Fighter and was sent home; never shown again. He has not fought in any well known promotions, nor has he fought any known fighters. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Pretty notable in TUF history by virtue of having a nasty injury. Not notable in the UFC, but definitely is in the TV show. Should be kept. There are certainly less notables out there as well. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep this article because some people will remember an injury (not the fighter) on a reality show? "Not notable in the UFC", that is the most important part. If Lynch would have won his fight and actually been on the show, this discussion wouldn't be happening. Also, I'm working on getting rid of all the non-notable articles. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it doesn't just have be notability just in the UFC, proper. It's if he's notable to MMA. He is, as a contestant to TUF, especially one involved in such a high profile incident as previously mentioned. Definitely should be a keep Paralympiakos (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You don't have to be in the UFC to be notable in MMA (though it helps). However, being in 1 episode of a reality show and getting hurt doesn't make you notable--that's more like WP:BLP1E. His busted nose seems to have gotten most of the coverage about him. He has no appearances in major events or against major opponents. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance on the show (a notable show in MMA) and then his loss, then his injury. I count three notable things. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those were all the same event. I don't believe that appearing on TUF automatically makes one notable, but you seem to. I know actors aren't considered notable for appearing in a single episode and that boxers from The Contender have been deleted as nn. That's fine--we're both entitled to our opinions on that. Papaursa (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same event or not, there were still plenty of factors as I mentioned in my last reply. Also, this is fairly open to opinion, so I'm not claiming this as fact, but I'd say that TUF is far more well-known and notable than The Contender. Also, the actor argument wouldn't be too valid in my book. There are millions of actors out there, so we can't have pages for lesser-known actors, or we'd have about a million actor pages. Can you truly say the same for fighters? The inclusion criteria is far less harsh for MMA fighters, owing to their sheer lack of numbers. As such, getting onto TUF should be enough to warrant article inclusion. I'm not saying we should allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to have articles, but in my mind, The Ultimate Fighter participation makes one a candidate. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made me curious so I went searching for the viewership numbers for the two shows. From what I could find, when on NBC The Contender drew several times as many people as TUF. Even when it was switched to ESPN it outdrew TUF. The problem was those networks want far higher ratings to keep a show on. From what I read, getting on TUF is now more about generating ratings than proven fighting ability--especially when compared to the first year or two. At any rate, I've said my piece so whatever others decide is fine by me. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. I wouldn't say we should follow the example of the Contender then. Just because there apparently arent pages for the boxers in that show, doesn't mean TUF should follow suit. As for the opinion that TUF fighters are selected for ratings, rather than ability; that's a little unfair. There are valid cases such as Kimbo Slice, but the majority aren't. Lynch is one picked on talent, as evidenced by his decent record against tough state opposition.

But yeah, I don't have much more to say on the matter, unless someone else asks me a question regarding Lynch. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still wanna know why you (Paralympiakos) think an injury on one episode of a reality show makes someone notable? RapidSpin33 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly this. He easily fits the description. As I've said; 3 factors, the TUF appearance, which is a highly notable show, his loss in said show, his notable injury in said show, which will be remembered for a long time. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one will remember Lynch's name, and hardly anyone will remember that injury after the season ends. His loss doesn't not make him notable, neither does appearing, for only a few minutes, in one episode of a reality T.V. show. Just quit arguing it, he is not notable. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They won't remember him? Says who? If in six months, you're right, THEN it would make sense to delete. For now, you're being far too reactionary. Let's be honest, he's got far more notability than Todd Murphey and Andy Ogle, that you created and it's a very well written article. Notability is there. If you want to relist this article in a few months, then go ahead, but for now, we should keep it. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:GNG. Part of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you don't like those other articles, put them up for AfD. Astudent0 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fighting a losing battle here. I still believe he's notable, but since it's 3-1, I'm redirecting the article to the TUF 11 page as I believe that keeping the framework of the current article hidden will allow for easy recreation, should it require so. I trust everyone is fine with that. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seen your reasoning for redirecting the article and you are being subjective saying the article is "well-written." I looked at the article and there was a lot of stuff that is not sourced such as "baddest man in Minnesota." Plus the stuff from Ultimate Fighter should be easily sourced, but that was failed to be done. If you wanted this other to be kept, then you should have continued to source it and add information to expand it. But you seemingly threw in the proverbial towel per se and conceded defeat. Finally, it's not about !votes. Whether the article is deleted or not is based on the discussion. Now as far as the discussion goes, if you are going to use WP:OTHERCRAP, then do something about it. Don't complain about lesser known fighters having articles if you are not doing anything about it. With that being said, I am closing this discussion as the article has been redirected to the current season of the Ultimate Fighter. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:03, 20 May 2010 (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.