Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Couture

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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Couture

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

Procedural nomination. I deprodded this because, as noted on its talk page, there are many possible good sources, and arguably, she could be notable. I also noticed much vandalism on the page, so I semi-protected it for 24 hours. No opinion on the substance of deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her notability limit it self to being the ex of Randy Couture, that is the only reason these fights were track and that ther are people actually cared wat she has to say. Other then that she hasn't accomplished anything, she is a terrible fighter 1-2. I doubt that being the ex of an mma star is inuff to be notable.GSP-Rush (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WPMA/N. Janggeom (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is independent coverage in reliable sources, and the coverage focuses on the subject (as opposed to focusing on Randy Couture, whose (ex-)wife happens to also fight). It's thin, absolutely, but it (barely) meets minimum standards, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. as she presently fails WPMA/N. It is too early to tell where this will go, perhaps a few months down the road she will have elevated above our notability standards. Til then... JBsupreme (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete without prejudice." LOL, thanks for making me laugh. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the coverage is thin right now, but I feel this makes the hurdle over our notability standards. RFerreira (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,while the article is small it can be lengthened through reliable sources and more media attention. She has just started her MMA career and that is no reason to delete it.Also the fact that she is Randy's ex-wife should not matter. Also people's opinions about her shouldn't be a reason for deletion.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment. If we are considering the subject's MMA career as a point to support notability, I would actually see 'just starting' her MMA career as a reason for deletion—unless the start has been spectacular. Just a brief thought. Janggeom (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. The fact that "she has just started her MMA career" is the basis for deletion to begin with. JBsupreme (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is, the coverage of her just started career is probably greater than would be typical - because of her ex-husband. Not sure what to do with that, but there it is. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WPMA/N. Male MMA fighters with more experience and better records have been deleted for this reason. Her one victory was over a fighter who has never lasted an entire round in any of her fights. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this AfD emphasizes the problems with WP:ATHLETE. Is being a professional athlete in a more obscure sport sufficient? WP:ATHLETE, which is a guideline, says yes, WP:WPMA/N, which is an essay, says no. Pcap ping 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in USA Today, and FOX News [1], so meets WP:GNG. Pcap ping 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap. I think she meets the guidelines generally and specifically, based on the best available sources. The most common outcome in the past is that a professional athlete who has played even once is kept. Whether wrestling is a sport is a question that is beyond the scope of this discssion. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep references available per Pcap. Meets athlete which delete comments do not address fully. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:14, 11 February 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.