Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joop Kasteel

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 keep. JForget 00:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joop Kasteel

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

The only cited source in this article is a fight list (currently 404 anyway). The sole claim to notability is uncited. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources with coverage. If he was indeed world champion in MMA at one point, like the sources say, then he would immediately qualify for notability, per WP:MANOTE. Silver seren^C 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MANOTE is an essay. It has no relevance here. The sources added (as "external links" not supporting any of the material in the article) appear to be mostly unreliable (official website, interviews, blogs, etc). However, the sources do verify, reliably, that he is the Dutch champion and a professional fighter (see the Liverpool Echo article which is about the only link I would consider reliable). That is enough in my view to get him over WP:ATH. I would support stubbification. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MANOTE is an essay which is part of the Martial Arts Project and represents the consensus of the MA editors (see the talk page). jmcw (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand that. But MANOTE does not represent the consensus of the community at large, in the way that WP:ATH and WP:BIO do. The community decides what articles are kept and deleted, not individual wikiprojects. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikiprojects are given general jurisdiction over additional, more specific notability for their areas of interest. The essays on notability created by Wikiprojects are generally considered to be consensus for that topic. This is even more so for the Martial Arts Wikiprojects, where there is not even any opposition to the notability guidelines, but full consensus. And, as the box on the top of the Football Wikiproject says, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article. The degree of consensus that went into creating this essay (a potential measurement of the reliability of the advice) can be judged by consulting the history and talk pages. WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability." Silver seren^C 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:ESSAYDEL. Silver seren^C 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to WP:ONLYESSAY. Silver seren^C 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are given no jurisdiction whatsoever. The community decides what gets included in the encyclopaedia, not a narrow group of experts in a particular field. No amount of lawyering about the meaning of an essay - by citing essays on the meaning of essays - can affect that basic principle. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ESSAYDEL is a proposed policy essay, so it is certainly given higher priority. Furthermore, are you seriously going to discredit arguments to avoid when it is linked and referenced everywhere by hundreds of users? And I am offended that you would accuse me of wikilawyering. Silver seren^C 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I accuse you of wikilawyering? I don't mean plain "lawyering" to be a perjorative term. I'm a lawyer myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the assumption that when you said "No amount of lawyering", you were referring to Wikilawyering. If I was wrong, then I apologize. Silver seren^C 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is ment to give helping hints on point that are worth looking at. As mentioned it was jsut saying what had been considered. --Nate ^t/_c 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to pass WP:Athlete as fully professional, 31 fight mostly in notable promotions. --Nate ^t/_c 12:42, 8 April 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.