Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randa Markos

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 redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: A Champion Will Be Crowned. Clearly arguments to keep this based on non policy based reasons are not valid. This leaves a majority to delete and an argument to redirect. As the consensus is that we do not retain the article I see no harm in the lesser outcome of a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randa Markos

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight (a loss). It's been a long standing agreement that TUF fights that are not part of the finale are exhibitions that don't count towards notability. I would really prefer to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: A Champion Will Be Crowned, but I didn't want to just make the move by myself.Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the above reasons. Since Randa did appear on the Finale, although it was between the two losing semi-finalists, I could live with a Redirect. Redirects for participants in TUF should not be automatic.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect She definitely fails to meet WP:NMMA and the article could reasonably be deleted. I agree with Peter's reasoning about the redirect and that appearing on TUF shouldn't merit an automatic redirect. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NMMA provides a rule of thumb, not a mandate. We don't count TUF fights toward notability in part because the contestants normally consist of regional talent only competing for a spot on the UFC roster. Many of these contestants will not eventually either join or stay on the UFC roster for long. In contrast, almost all of TUF 20's contestants were notable prior to the show. They were also competing for the championship belt of a new UFC division. Markos competed against three high-profile fighters on the show, and fought in a high-profile match in her UFC debut. She is now a top 10 UFC ranked fighter who will surely remain on the roster. • aifanp 10:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her ranking is somewhat immaterial, certainly her UFC ranking is. She's not even in the top 15 in the world rankings and WP:NMMA is the generally accepted standard for showing notability as an MMA fighter. She may well get her 3 top tier fights, but that falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Of course I have no objection to the article being saved in userspace for when/if she becomes notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have these requirements (WP:NOTABILITY) to make sure that there is "significant coverage" on the article and "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph." Her life before, during, and after TUF 20 has been well-documented. And her page, while not extensive, is certainly longer than a stub. • aifanp 07:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a bit of latitude should be extended to female sportsfigures in general given institutional advantages of male sports, and aifanp's rationale acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - placing 4th in TUF 20 makes her a top fighter in her weight division. She's made 4 fights in the UFC now (even if 3 of them are exhibition fights) and that should be taken into account. It's not like she's just a fighter who happened to participate in a reality show, she was one fight away of fighting for the title.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being ranked 7th in the UFC, not in the top 15 worldwide, is not an indicator of notability. Why are people so determined to ignore the existing notability criteria? She may well become notable, but right now is WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you link for me the three fights in UFC she's participated in please? SQL ^{Query me!} 08:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind, I misread that. She's fought one UFC fight. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Beat many top fighters, bonus awards, I think she has earned herself a WP:GNG pass. LiberatorLX (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. I don't see where she has beaten any ranked righters so that claim is bogus. Exhibition fights (which is most of TUF) never count as top tier. There are nearly 200 female MMA fighters so I don't see why some editors believe that the existing rules are discriminatory. Saying that all fighters at TUF 20 were fighting for a title so they all automatically meet WP:NMMA is to abuse the concept. It would be like saying all fighters are trying to become a world champion so they're all automatically notable. Jakejr (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA, which is the accepted guideline for MMA fighters at WP:NSPORT. All of the keep voters are ignoring the existing standards and making up their own.Astudent0 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks good. Passes WP:GNG with numerous references in the article already. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the prevailing notability guidelines for MMA at this time. One UFC fight, and has not fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:28, 26 December 2014 (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.