Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Striegl

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. Papaursa sums it up nicely, and obviously has a good grasp of the inclusion policy. Routine coverage and mentions are not the same as winning top tier fights and have extensive coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Vague claims of meeting GNG (while admitting one is too lazy to prove it) is not convincing at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Striegl

Mark Striegl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable mixed martial artist. No top tier fights - does not meet WP:NMMA. PRehse (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Very easily meets GNG, and I'm too lazy to drum up an elaborate argument to deal with somebody's sloppy nomination. Whatever is already present in the article is sufficient, but much more is out there waiting to be added. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator only bothered to elaborate after I called out his sloppiness and in fact should properly reflect the changes he made to his 16 June statement a week later. Anyhow NMMA is secondary to GNG and frankly that's all I'm looking at. If it meets GNG, it's here to stay. Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just delete it. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT? What sort of rationale is that? Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia:DONTBEBORING

Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they

   Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
   Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

Master Sun Tzu (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you fail to address the glaring fact that these MMA guidelines DO NOT supersede basic notability guidelines. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With no top tier fights he clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. I would say the references in the article do not meet WP:GNG since I would consider them routine sports coverage (reporting on upcoming events and results). The only reference that doesn't qualify is somebody's list of Philippine fighters likely to make the UFC. Striegl's name appears in that list, but I don't consider that as significant and independent coverage, which is what the GNG requires. Also note that that list was created 5 1/2 years ago and he has yet to make it to the UFC (that's why we have WP:CRYSTALBALL). Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the references in the article do not meet GNG"....... But the topic itself does. Notability is not hinged upon the state of sourcing present in the article, but the sources available. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own search did not turn up significant independent coverage from reliable sources to show WP:GNG is met--at least in my opinion. If you have found such sources, please add them to the article and I will reconsider my position. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the burden of proof is on those who claim a lack of notability. In the court of law it is up to the prosecution (i.e. y'all...) to determine the guilt of the defendant (this article). I have no obligation to perform cleanup on this article, and neither is cleanup a prerequisite for keeping an article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"at least in my opinion" is a handy way to buy some leeway for yourself, and also implies you do not necessarily know what GNG is about, or have not bothered to look through everything (probably stopped at page one of Google results), thus cannot opine decisively. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that GNG means "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So, pray tell, what did your "search" entail? What sources did you not find? Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you need a bit more familiarity with a variety of topics. "At least in my opinion" means that I'm experienced enough on WP to know that different editors can look at the same sources and reach different conclusions about their significance. WP:BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and is generally interpreted to mean the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. To use your court example, those claiming notability are initiating the discussion (akin to making the charge) and hence they need to prove their case. Finally, it is impossible to prove a negative and listing the sources I did not find is an impossibility. I still stand open to review any reliable sources you care to provide that show significant and independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we discussing verifiability or notability here? BURDEN is not relevant to this thread. And obviously I know it is "impossible" -- I didn't think you'd take it literally. My point was that if you had bothered to just put in the remotest of efforts into finding something, you'd have seen that it meets GNG so easily. I'd list them out in cases where perhaps one could find ten sources -- but, here, it is overwhelming. I'm done here. To the closing admin, I'm placing all my faith in you. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might serve you better to WP:AGF instead of telling me (contributor to thousands of AfD discussions) that I "do not necessarily know what GNG is about" and that I "stopped at page one of Google results". I offered to look at any sources you provided, but you just kept claiming there were many and you couldn't be bothered. Papaursa (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please carefully assess the above arguments against actual policy; much of what is being argued are not grounds for deletion and reek of IDONTLIKEIT, WP:SURMOUNTABLE, anti-WP:NPOSSIBLE, etc. AfD is not cleanup. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe even bias. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2017 (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.