Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emelio Bruno

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emelio Bruno

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

Really confused as to why this wasn't speedily deleted. Subject never was at the Olympics as a participant. Bruno has only one mention in a 1971 magazine so there hardly is any coverage. Being the "father" of Air Force judo is not an accomplish in itself either as I've seen many claims of martial artists to be the "father" of military arts. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Doesn't meet the basic notability guidelines, WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – I have never seen a page as blank as that, that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Browndog91 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Coaching a U.S. team on a Japanese tour is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article wasn't much to look at when this nomination was made, an IP address (not me) made significant additions earlier today. The article still needs work, a lot of it in the form of converting in-article external links into properly formatted references. But notability is well established by these additional links. According to the subject's obituary in Black Belt (magazine), the subject is credited with popularizing judo in the United States (and not just with the military). He was also the subject (while living) of a five-page article in that same magazine. And I've only yet scratched the surface of the approximately two dozen new links in the article. What is needed here is clean-up, not deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up I've started the first round of clean-up for the article. In the process, I learned that many of the new links were duplicates of each other, so that the actual number of additional links added by the IP address is much lower than the two dozen that I had reported. However, these new links still do document the subject's notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is one good Black Belt article on him ("The Grand Old Man of Judo" article isn't about him). However, there is nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE since rank is not an indicator of notability. In addition, WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that I can't find and don't see. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. Before I respond, I'll note for the closing administrator that Papaursa and I are the only two discussants who have commented on the article since it was expanded on September 26. I also note that Google searching might have been hampered by the incorrect spelling of the subject's name in the article title -- it should be "Emilio", not "Emelio". And during his career, the subject was largely known as "Mel Bruno".

Papursa, it might well be true that "rank is not an indicator of notability" under the essay that you cited. But that essay also says that the existence of an independent article on the subject is such an indicator, and the essay does not insist on there being more than one such article. But that's a moot point, because the subject passes the general notability guidelines without recourse to the martial-arts essay. One of the criteria for being notable under the general guidelines is that the person's contributions have become part of the enduring historical record of his field. And that's precisely true for the subject here. That five-page article in Black Belt is evidence of this, as it was published in the 1970s, well after Bruno's peak years of accomplishments. And the obituary that the magazine ran in 2004 described him as a "pioneer" of American judo. The website for the United States Judo Federation uses that same word to describe Bruno in its article on the development of Judo in the United States (and that article includes an extended biography of him). In 2007, Bruno was inducted (posthumously) into the Hall of Fame at the Martial Arts History Museum (a fact that I added to the article earlier today). Add to all this the subject's role in developing the US military's judo team, and we have more than enough material with which to build a decent, well-sourced article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC) slight revisions by NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG uses the plural in describing "reliable sources" and saying "multiple sources are generally expected." Martial arts halls of fame have never been considered to show notability due to the large number of them. When I searched the USJF website, I didn't find the source you mention--just passing mentions. In addition, I'm not sure how they could describe him as a "pioneer" and yet not put him in their hall of fame. That seems like a disconnect to me. I'm also not convinced that an obituary is sufficient to show notability, unless it's in a major general publication (e.g., NY Times). Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fallen victim to my own poor note-taking. The website that described Bruno as a pioneer was the one for the Judo Encyclopedia, not the USJF. Because I don't believe that the encyclopedia is a top-quality source, I've stricken my comment from above. But one good thing came out of my mishap -- the additional searching caused me to stumble across the web site for the United States Judo Association, which discusses Bruno's role in the creation of that organization. That site has been added as a general reference to the subject article (though it can be brought into the article itself as part of the general clean-up that is still needed). So that brings the number of independent reliable sources up to at least six, more than enough to create a well-sourced article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have not commented because opinion has not changed.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2016 (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.