Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ricci (fighter)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ricci (fighter)

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

Notability has not been established. Not nearly enough fights especially in top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricci is given good secondary coverage here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mma/news/20121213/mike-ricci/, here http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/mike-ricci-on-mmajunkiecom-radio/1851158127001 , and here http://ca.news.yahoo.com/montreal-mma-pros-gsp-macdonald-ricci-weigh-fighting-160448560--spt.html

WP:MMANOT says mutliple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So I think Ricci should stay. I would also like to cite WP:TUF

Keep PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has multiple fights to show notability. Has fought in Bellator and the UFC, therefore passing WP:MMANOT, especially when you consider he's fought in the Ultimate Fighter too and is a runner-up. Not many fighters can claim to have made it to the finals of the Ultimate Fighter. Is still with the company, so he'll only continue to have more UFC fights in the coming months. Silly nomination, imo. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the fight record is correct this fighter fails the WP:MMANOT fighters test. Specifically failing the support of notability 1 (Only reference listed in article from fight 2 years ago), notability 2 (has not fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization), and notability 3 (Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations). Notability is enduring and I notice that he's listed in an event that occured last night, so it's reasonable to assume that there'll be a burst of coverage about him in context of The Ultimate Fighter 16, but that does not make him notable enough for a stand alone article. Hasteur (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete albeit without prejudice. The nominator is incorrect, as Ricci only fails by a single Top-Tier fight per WP:MMANOT. Nevertheless the creation of the article was technically premature and he technically requires that he wait until his third fight in a Top-Tier organization for a created article. I would have voted to Keep the article if he had another UFC fight scheduled at least, but he just had his first such fight (and second top-tier fight) 24 hours ago. If he had won his fight last night I would have still voted Keep on the grounds that he is the winner of a reality show (The Ultimate Fighter season 16 for outsiders), but he did not do that either. This article can be recreated when he passes WP:MMANOT and the previous version should be accessible then (and you can also simply copy it to your sandbox for now). Beansy (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is every !voter (who provides any rationale at all) quoting "MMANOT" as if it were a notability guideline? WP:ATHLETE is a notability guideline, as is WP:BASIC - both of which rely on evaluation of independent, reliable sources to determine if a subject is notable. Based on these guidelines and evaluation of the sources already in the article, this one looks like a keep. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer WP:NMMA which says the same thing as WP:MMANOT in regards to MMA fighters? --TreyGeek (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it's the nuanced WP:SNG that has been customized for MMA fighters which we try to enforce a bit higher standard because there has been an issue in the past with all sorts of fighter articles being created. Hasteur (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top of WP:ATHLETE that exceptions can be made and also mentions using common sense. Why is the bar so low for boxers at WP:NBOX that they only have to appeared on one primetime or PPV Showtime/HBO event? MMA fighters must appear in 3? I think an exception could be made for Ricci because common sense says that he is going to get that third fight scheduled in the near future. Why go through the hassle when you know he is going to get the fight and this is doing to be be brought up again? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're considering a MMA fighter here. Think the MMANOT essay is wrong, open a discussion there explaining a good reasoning. In the mean time we're evaluating based on the guidelines we have currently Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Only two bouts for top-tier organizations, the article fails WP:NMMA, but it can meet WP:GNG. He was a TUF runner-up (he will certainly fight again in the UFC), the only thing missing is more sources (more prose would also be good). If anyone can, please add more reliable sources (mainly in section "The Ultimate Fighter"). Poison Whiskey 02:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he will certainly fight again - That's WP:CRYSTAL. For all we know he may fall and break his neck, thereby ending his MMA career. There's a reason why 3 appearances in a top tier MMA event are required so as to ensure that notable fighters are in the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know he may fall and break his neck - That's much more uncertain than my statement. He still can meet WP:GNG, just need more sources. Poison Whiskey 15:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's got his 3 notable fights. More so if you count Colton Smith who is a TUF winner. Also fought for a title in a top tier organization, and that title is "TUF 16 Winner". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm counting Bellator 14 and The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson Finale as 2 events. I note the MMANOT does not determine if Tournements like TUF count as an individual event or multiple events. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - MManot is not policy, WP:ATHLETE is. Sure there is an mma part but it does say at the very top "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". This is one of those cases. He passes Wikipedia:GNG so lets have some common sense. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you like to check your bias? HINT: You should. Considering that the essay is a rough consensus established by several long time editors from both within and without the MMA project, been cited by administrators in closing, and upheld by administrators at DRV, it's reasonable to use it as a strong check as a Specific Notability Guideline for MMA based articles. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with citing an essay in the interest of being concise - basically saying, "I think this subject is/ is not notable for the reasons outlined here." This should not be confused (as you seem to be) with an actual guideline. Proposed guidelines need broad review by the community before being promoted, not local consensus by a Wikiproject. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hastuer: I guess I am biased towards the fact that he had exhibition fights on Spike TV outside of the TUF finale and the Bellator card, and the fact that he is mentioned in the yahoo news article in the title along with GSP and Rory Mcdonald would beef up that bias. I guess being on TV aand in print one too many times leads to a bias where I think people start becoming notable. Please explain to me WHy Ricci's article should be deleted other than I am biased

edit:Hmm, I think I know what you mean. Even if I have fought (and for all you know I could be full of hot air. Anyone can get an amateur fight. One only has to call the local bush league, or go down to the bar after last call) I think it is ok if I point out a couple of independent sources along with some commentary. Are you an MMA fan Hasteur? If so you should check your bias. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that Mike Ricci fought for a title in a top tier organization, and that title is "TUF 16 Winner". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Here's the source for my statement (he will certainly fight again in the UFC), he is still on the UFC roster: link.

Also, on a quick search i found some sources for the article:

lot of prose can be added to the article. Poison Whiskey 21:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But a weak one. Out of 10 fights, only 7 wins, 4 notable opponents and 2 notable events. But the potential is there. As far as I know, he is signed to UFC and can still get a fight on a main card on FX or Fuel. Mazter00 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, and recreate if he fights in the UFC again. He fails WP:NMMA right now, and while he's likely to get another top tier fight, it's still WP:CRYSTAL to assume that. CaSJer (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I also point out that Mike Ricci is a TUF Finalist, and fought Colton Smith for the title "TUF 16 winner", which is a title for a top tier organization? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For everyone saying he needs one more fight I say read this WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and then consider him passing Per WP:GNG. I'd say he is in and any additional fights/notability he gains only serves to increase the prosaic content of his page.

More recent coverage here — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm confused because he has the same notability as some of the other fighters that people have wanted deleted. Why do we accept the notability criteria for 1 fighter but that same notability isn't acceptable for another. If the group was following the guidelines, then there should be some consistancy. I removed my vote to keep it, it doesn't really seem to matter. The guidelines don't seem to matter.Willdawg111 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was suprised they kept Papy Abidi. It was like parting the red sea (miracle). He has drastically less notability than Ricci. I realise this is WP:otherstuff but still. this place is bonkers sometimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blame that on a few submit happy individuals (no fingers pointed). There were just too many AfDs at any one time to keep things clear. That is the way of things but right now on the martial art related lists there are 30 and most of them borederline. Personally resisting the submission of even really clear cases so the number has a chance to go down.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly fails WP:NMMA, but per WP:GNG and WP:SENSE i voted for keep. I'm not sure if this article will be kept, but i think it is a case to consider. Poison Whiskey 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Will certainly fight again in the UFC, TUF runner-up. Passes WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (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.