- 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. Consensus is that the sources provided do not pass the GNG. Long rambling posts casting aspertions at the motives of the delete voters not only carry very little weight in a process where consensus is determined by policy based arguments but also made me seriously consider blocking the prepetrator for creating a battleground. Spartaz Humbug! 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. sources are primary sources, nothing in gnews. also nominating for same reasons, just a list of results from a minor sporting event:
LibStar (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats wrong with you Lipstar? You have something against kickboxing articles or what. It doesn't even cross your mind to notify the persons who created the pages and the projects these articles are part of? It has to be some kinda violation what you doing. These are series of events held by a major kickboxing organization at a time in Europe, all were broadcast live in Eurosport featuring world champion fighters. What do you expect to find in current gnews? The last event was held in 2006, at the time these events were held they were the second biggest kickboxing organization next to K-1.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it needs coverage in reliable sources which these whole series of articles lacks. there is no rule that you have to notify article creators. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources for these events are primary sources, usually superleaguetv.com. Routine sports results do not satisfy the notability criteria. The question isn't whether SuperLeague is notable, it's whether routine news coverage of their events is notable. Jakejr (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All pages have secondary sources in order to show that it was not just from the SuperLeague site. This was done delibrately with the previous nomination in mind (which as mentioned already, was overturned). jsmith006 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2011
- Keep It would have been nice to have been notified that these pages were up for deletion – if a fellow member hadn’t told me this could have been deleted without me knowing (which has seemingly happened to other kickboxing pages as well). Anyway, moving quickly on – the main page of this one (Thai & Kickbox SuperLeague) was previously nominated by Papaursa who I believe informed me of the changes and the deletion tag was removed as the sources were deemed acceptable. Removing all of the results page would therefore deem this page less informative as well as effecting dozens of kickboxing fighter pages such as Sahin Yakut, Albert Kraus, Shane Chapman, Dany Bill, Dmitry Shakuta etc – all of which are notable fighters who have won world titles and appeared on organizations such as K-1 and It's Showtime. The sources that have been used include a mixture of official results as well as comparable results from Dutch sites to give a balanced view and show that all results etc and that they are consistent. I am also concerned that if you get rid of these pages on the basis of being ‘sports results’ then surely hundreds of pages on wikipedia will be considered obsolete, including K-1 and It’s Showtime. I think that some of the rules on wikipedia are being followed over zealously and common sense should apply here 1) SuperLeague is/was a notable organization that ran into financial difficulties 2) the organization had a rooster of world and European champions and at the time was the most notable European promotion 3) getting rid of the pages would create a huge amount of red links throughout wikipedia 4) the way in which this has been nominated (no message from the person involved) should also point out the rather unscrupulous nomination methods by some.jsmith006 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2011
- I agree that some individual kickboxer articles but this not this sprawling series of comments. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Libster) 'Sprawling series of comments' - rather derogatory way to explain my work, especially because it's not actually a sprawling series of comments in anyones mind expect yourself. The way you put yourself across is really rather terrible and incredibly unconstructive.jsmith006 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2011
- It's dangerous to suggest that "If you deleted this, you'd have to delete this other thing too!" Someone wandering by might decide to nom all those... Kevin (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is what is going on constantly at the moment. People who have little or no understanding of kickboxing or of the notability of events (repeated again - the biggest kickboxing promotion in Europe and 2nd behind K-1 in 2006 - this isn't a sunday football league) going around as authority figures nominating pages with little respect or feelings for the hard work involved. jsmith006 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011
- Comment Any reason Mr Mtking why you are so keen to delete this yet the Mohamed ouali (Mixed Martial Artist) was given a weak delete with its CAPITAL LETTER TEXT, lack of any references and basically looking like it was thrashed out in 10 seconds. jsmith006 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2011
- Delete There is no evidence of notability. (Note: These articles have, by the admission of at least one of the editors, been created with the intention of using Wikipedia to "become a major source of information" on subjects without much coverage. This is totally contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to set the record straight, I never attempted to delete the SuperLeague page, although I did tag it for lack of notability and independent sources. Jsmith and I exchanged a number of posts on this topic. I know he's worked hard on these pages, but I don't see anything except routine results and I don't think those pass WP:GNG. I also realize many don't share my views--witness all the UFC event pages. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure you nominated it for deletion which in my mind is roughly the same thing (but if I'm wrong I apologize). However, you did it civilly and were willing to discuss it with me so thank you for that. This other guy is on some sort of power trip and either seems to like rubbing people up the wrong way or just lacks any kind of social awareness and graces. This isn't an isolated incidence. Back to the point - these series of events are NOTABLE because SuperLeague was the second biggest promotion after K-1 back in 2006 and if you know anything about kickboxing just look at the kind of fighters on the roster - John Wayne Parr multiple world champion - Albert Kraus first ever K-1 MAX world champion - Dmitry Shakuta two time It's Showtime 77MAX world champion - it goes on and on. Not to mention coverage by Eurosport which for Europeans is one of the top sports channels. jsmith006 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2011
- I had dinner with the president of Mexico once. I haven't tried to make a Wikipedia article about that yet, though. But, non-sarcastically - notability is not inherited from participants, no matter who the participants are. If you can provide the kind of third party coverage that is required to meet the GNG or other relevant guideline, then please do so. Incidentally, I noticed you just created a bunch of articles about specific weight classes at a particular boxing tournament where the only sources you included are either primary sources or blogs. Please stop creating that sort of article until, at a minimum, this AfD is handled. Kevin (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe your getting a little touchy because there's traits of your buddy Libstar in yourself. I'm not going to be put off by you waving phantom WP this and WP that when my work is relevant and notable to kickboxing - so don't try and tell me what I can or can't do. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 9:32, 30 June 2011
- Since the promotion was based in Austria here's some links from third party German language news media covering all the events in question that took place in Germany, Switzerland and Austria.
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] From the last link you can find the countries the events were live or semi/live broadcast. Belgium, Germany, France, Poland, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Hungary, UK and Ireland, Brazil and Fox Sports of Australia.
At Kevin, you got no right to say the man what to create and what not. One more thing, for all of you deletionists who wanna make wikipedia better concentrate on articles like this, example Mohamed ouali (Mixed Martial Artist), never gonna hear any complains from me about deleting those, eventhou Mohamed Ouali was a notable fighter, the article looks like been created by a twelve year old without any references at all and all of a sudden the deletion specialists over here feel like giving a couple Weak Deletes, on the other hand in this case, a series of referenced sports event articles featuring world class athletes, taking place throughout Europe and being broadcast world wide, are being labeled without any hesitation delete all, just like that. It doesnt make any sense to me.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 100s of sporting events are broadcast live each day worldwide on ESPN and Fox Sports, this does not mean we create articles for them. Where is the third party coverage of each of these sporting events ie indepth reporting in major newspapers not connected to kickboxing. No such reporting exists. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the way you said WE, you don't create any articles anyway.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (To Libstar) You seem to lack the comprehension that kickboxing is NOT American football or Baseball and I think it is ridiculous to apply the same logic of sources to them. You also lack the understanding of the subject matter to determine what is notable or not – while you keep going on about references and 3rd party sources I keep telling you that the event is NOTABLE in the world of kickboxing. Go onto to the SuperLeague website, you can tell it is a notable organization from the amount of TV coverage from across the world and check out some of the fighter’s pages – they are highly decorated champions in a range of styles. As the organization is no longer active (yes even notable organizations can run into financial difficulties) of course there is not going to be any results in Google News. This series of events isn't mickey mouse involving nobodies - these are important guys in kickboxing. jsmith006 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2011
It is common sense and common courtesy to avoid creating dozens of articles that have the same issues as articles that are currently being discussed in an AfD. It's not an unusual or offensive request. It allows discussion to be centralized in one place instead of spread out over dozens and dozens of AfD's. It also ensures that you don't put hours of effort in to something that is deleted for reasons already brought up at an ongoing AfD. BTW: you by definition do not need subject matter expertise to determine if something is notable by wikipedia's standards. You may not like our notability standard - but it is our notability standard - and you are not going to succeed here by arguing against the standard. (And I would agree that SuperLeague is notable, but there's a big jump between an organization being notable and each event they host being notable.) Kevin (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Finally, a (semi decent) response, but this isn't JUST about notability or sources it's about the selective way some of our kickboxing pages are being targeted for nomination and it still hasn't been explained why a far weaker page (see Marty comment) is getting weak deletes while mine which is better sourced, better written, more relevant etc is getting nominated. On a human level I am willing to work with suggestions as I did with Papaursa (maybe it wasn't fully resolved but heh) but when people start nominating stuff in the way this has been done then it's not a surprise people got hot under the collar. Think of it as your car being towed away with no notificiation of how to get it back and then having to deal with some clerk that basically blanks you. Seems that a lot of you are fine with the way things are being done and I think alot of people are actually scared to contribute on this website as a result. I also didn't like what seemed like a 'veiled threat' you gave of 'someone might be watching and may decide to nominate these other pages' - not very cool. However, I'm willing to apologise if this was not your intention although I still think this whole thing is a clash of interests between two parties - one for creating pages one for deleting. jsmith006 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2011
- It wasn't at all a veiled threat, it was a serious observation. Pointing to the existence of other pages as a reason why an article shouldn't be deleted like that is never a good idea, because if it's a good comparison then someone who wants to delete the first article will see the second article and want to delete that too, and if it's a bad comparison then there's no value in it. So the best case is it won't help your argument and the worst case is someone will jump on the other pages and AfD them too - I have seen that happen pretty commonly when that kind of argument is used. Kevin (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I apologize and retract that statement. You seem like a reasonable guy despite our disagreements so I appreciate you clearing that up. jsmith006 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011
- Keep Keep it, of course! Some guys who are completely out regarding this phenomen, are profiting of us, the nice writers, who update the kickboxing database and who work honestly in order Wikipedia to aim more visitors. and trust me, kickboxing fans are searching wikipedia database also! guys like Marty or JSmith are doing great job, please respect their work. Anyway, regarding this article SuperLeague's events were notable and this organisation is part of the history. I dont see why not have the history of kickboxing with its events from beginning to present. Albert Kraus, Yoshihiro Sato, Roberto Cocco, Dmitry Shakuta were fighting in this promotion. I need to repeat myself, some guys are doing points on our back, honest writers and workers here as volunteer, while they do this to hint positions at Wikipedia. Please leave us alone and respect our work, because we also respected the rules! What will happen if us, about 7-8 kickboxing writers, will decide to stop and decide to leave? i think wikipedia will lose a lot of kickboxing fans who are searching this database; just watch the views of each page! admins can verify that. Some guys even deleted our kickboxing project page!Cyperuspapyrus (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2011
- you fail to address how WP:GNG is met. There is a notability standard that must be met. Saying "regarding this article SuperLeague's events were notable and this organisation is part of the history." is not advancing any case for keep as per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Also WP:NOHARM and WP:EFFORT are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (to Cyperus) You know what Cypresus I was feeling like packing up and leaving for good yesterday I was so frustated. However, I'm not going to be put off by all of this because I think we have made wikipedia the top place for kickboxing information and precisely because of our coverage of events of organizations like K-1, It's Showtime and SuperLeague. I feel very positive about our contribution. jsmith006 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011
- Unfortunately that reads as though you are using Wikipedia to publicise information which has little coverage elsewhere, which is a reason for deletion and not, as you seem to think, a reason for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunate or not as you may think my comment is, the fact is that kickboxing DOES GET COVERAGE just not on the scale that you guys seem to deem acceptable (which seems to be New York Times coverage). If the second biggest promotion in world kickboxing in 2006 can't be seen as notable to you well we might as well give up and stop creating altogether. I haven’t got some sort of ulterior motive here and I’m not going to start creating pages on pages on amateur fights down at the local leisure centre – through I wouldn’t be surprised if they got a couple of ‘weak deletes’ and ‘make a few improvements and it’ll be okay’jsmith006 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011.
- jSmith, you can't pack up anything, coz thats what he wants. To further break things down for Admins who will be making the decisions, to let someone delete series of referenced articles of major kickboxing events featuring world class professional athletes, that were broadcast all over the world by an established premier European promotion at a time, by simply saying "no gnews hits", will green light this guy for a major deletion craze for at least half of all the martial arts pages here in wikipedia. It has to be taken in consideration that martial arts in general does not get a coverage on major newspapers, unlike soccer, baseball etc. And that does not make them less notable. There was a List of kickboxing organizations article here but was deleted again, it listed more than 135 countries with internationally recognized kickboxing organizations all over the world, contrary what Watson stated, that we are just some few editors working on the overall non-notable subject by wikipedia standards. Libstar listed these articles up on a claim, "no gnews hits" and "only primary sources" and both were not true. There was gnews hits and I listed links from not a "primary source".Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the sources you've provided do not fit indepth coverage required for WP:GNG nor WP:RS. they merely confirm that certain events were broadcast. superleague may be notable but individual events fail to demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. the endless debate of these events being WP:ITSNOTABLE is in the absence of independent indepth sources covering this event not confirmations of TV coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re the one that’s the cause of this endless debate with your steadfast determination to nominate any kickboxing page which does not have sources which you consider to be notable and the event which you consider not to be notable – when what we are saying is that is notable. You have also refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the way in which this has been done. I have jumped through hoops to try and get the right references (after discussion with Papurusa), scouring the net for references only to still find stuff is nominated. Marty has provided foreign language sources but still you say it isn’t right and it does look like your determined to stop people working on kickboxing because you don’t appear think the sport is very relevant and seem to be targeting a solid series of events. Think of SuperLeague as a house – you are trying to remove all of the bricks in one section – leaving the house weaker. Do you think I want to be here arguing with you when I could be working on some new pages - of course I don't - but something has to be done because I think you are going to try and get rid of more and more pages growing with confidence as you do while pretending that your doing it for the good of wikipedia. jsmith006 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2011
- Comment As far as I can see, much of the argument for "keep" really amounts to "keep, because kickboxing enthusiasts say that it is notable, and anyone who suggests deleting must be a wicked person out to get kickboxers".
JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To above - that’s because you’re clearly just a wicked person who wants to get rid of our pages. Joking aside – this is not the primary motive for us. These series of pages are 1) notable because they were part of an event that was second most notable behind K-1 at the time – think It's Showtime now 2) the amount of TV coverage of the event and the staging in multiple European countries 3) the pages are well written (in my humble opinion) 4) there are large numbers of relevant links e.g. notable fighters 5) there are sources which have once again been rejected because they aren’t on a grandiose scale as with MLB or NBA (not possible due to the nature of kickboxing). The reason we are getting annoyed is because of the consistant way one of the deletionists is targeting our pages without notification and also with the way other pages (maybe less threatening to you guys for some reason) are getting weak deletes – none of whom our involved has explained your reasoning - maybe because you've had no opposition. You think this is just about us being victims – well I could say some of you guys are overly zealous and clearly not even being consistent with it. You can try and make us appear like emotional buffoons but I think its just a flat track method by (some of) you guys to try and get your own way. jsmith006 (talk) 13:00, 1 July
I'll add to that if it wasn't clear - TO THE GUYS WHO GAVE WEAK DELETES TO THE OTHER ARTICLE MENTIONED IN THE COMMENTS ABOVE (MOHAMMED OUALI) PLEASE COULD YOU EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 13:09, 1 July
- I can't comment for others, but I can tell you why I put "Comment" first, later replaced with "Delete". It's because there were definite well-recognized claims of notability (e.g., WKA and WAKO world champion). Those clearly meet WP:GNG, but WP:V was a problem, so I wanted to give an opportunity to source the claims. It may be that the others were torn between the claims and the lack of sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you recognise that being a world champion is a sign of notability but having nine world champions fighting on the same event is not – again within a promotion that was the second largest behind K-1. Also did you think that having absolutly no references is okay because they have apparantly won the WKA belt? You need to realise (and I realise you'reone of the better guys) that this rigid and contradictory standard most deletionists have is resulting in bad articles being given a yellow light (don’t know if you have them in the states – in UK its between Red and Green on traffic lights) while my series is being given the red light. I also know you can’t stand event pages and as decent a guy as you are, I believe this is what is clouding your judgement on this issue. However, I will repeat the way you do things is a much better way than some of your fellows. jsmith006 (talk) 08:18 2 July
- No, I didn't think it was okay to not have references, but I wanted to give the authors a chance to improve the article with reliable sources before voting delete. Note that I haven't voted in this discussion. I've been at events with numerous world champions, but while they're notable I don't consider the event notable unless it receives independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Legend Yoshihiro Sato of Japan was part of the SuperLeague. This organisation was important at the start of the new millenium when K-1 was still in vogue. Ikazuyoshi (talk), 1st July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC). — Ikazuyoshi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No matter who has participated, we need evidence that the subjects of the articles themselves are notable. Notability is not inherited from someone associated with the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's multiple evidence that the events were notable but you’re dismissing it (see Marty's last comment) and simply repeating yourself over and over (hence me repeating myself over and over). Do you really think that a series of events that are broadcast on at least 14 sports channels across the world including Fox Sports (Australia) and BSKYB and Eurosport is not an indicator of notability – I doubt the Tiddlywinks world championships would get 14 tv channels across the world (because it’s not very notable or entertaining – sorry Tiddlywinks fans). And you say that notable fighters don’t make the events notable – fair enough if it was one or two – but there are numerous world champions that have competed at the SAME EVENTS and regularly – take SuperLeague Tournament Turkey 2005 at least 9 world champions took part, having won prestigious belts such as the WFCA (which someone deleted without any of us knowing – for the second time), WKN and W.K.A., at the next Dmitry Shakuta (future It's Showtime champion, 8 time world champion), Clifton Brown (5 time world champion inc. WMC), Roberto Cocco four time world champion, at the next Şahin Yakut (Its SHowtime trophy winner, European champion), José Reis (K-1 MAX regional champion, WFCA world champion), Cosmo Alexandre (Its Showtime champion, multiple world champion) – it’s a who’s who of kickboxing and the belts won aren't fought between nobodies. Events were also held in places like Austria, Italy, Germany and Turkey and shipped in fighters like Yoshihiro Sato and John Wayne Parr who wouldn’t normally fight in Europe – proving that this was a promotion with some clout and influence that spread beyond the continent Marty’s already provided you with details as have I if you have even looked at the pages you are nominating – it doesn’t take a kickboxing expert to understand that this was a notable series of events in the context of the sport (2nd largest organization after K-1 at the time) unless you happen to think only American sports or sports with American coverage are notable or that G News is the deity of all things notable. PS you guys are going to have such good kickboxing knowledge soon you can come and join us and create some more pages. jsmith006 (talk) 23:11, 1 July
- Comment Lipstar above, i wasn't expecting you to admit anything but someone as biased view as you have on the subject in question, to actually say that "Superleage is maybe notable" is probably as good as it gets. In that case you are already contradicting yourself by trying to mass delete all those articles, the civil practice by wikipedia standards and for the respect of other editors, should have a tag for merge and we would have taken it from there.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing what keeps blowing my mind about your actions, lets say for example, I'm gonna go over to a Fencing project, a subject i don't know anything about, pick up some random articles and start nominating them for deletion because gnews gives no hits therefore they are non-notable. You seriously think thats alright. It doesn't even cross my mind to come up with something like that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A question for admins, what is this gnews requirement the dude is throwing out, I didn't get any decent hits on pradal serey either, maybe Lip should put this up for deletion as well, its only been practiced in southeast asia for only about 1000 years.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for admins (Marty first - had a page edit clash there) - In reference to this deletion being a green light to Libstar just check out this guys contributions since this discussion. He’s already nominated two more K-1 pages without (once again) notifying the page creator – you’ve really got to wonder whether this is some personal issue he has with the kickboxing guys. The way I look at it, there’s a certain way of doing things and he is clearly quite unfazed by upsetting anyone (yes I know it’s not an official rule but anyone can see it’s causing un-necessary tension). Do you think deleting this series of pages will calm this guy down – no he’ll just go and nominate more and more pages leaving this part of Wikipedia like a crumbling swiss cheese with more holes than you can count. We’ve also lost pages without even knowing (WFCA, list of kickboxing organizations) and having even had a chance to defend them – I don’t know if this was the same guy – but there seems to be a culture of this going on and it’s very worrying. I understand that you need to keep rubbish articles from being created and I am all for that but all of the articles I have created have been based on notable organizations in the sphere of kickboxing and have been referenced as well as I can – read through this article and look at the reasons two of the deletionists have for a much weaker page and compare that with their responses here (and they still haven't provided me with their reasoning - correction Pap just has but the other two haven't). Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 08:07, 2 July
- Personal demons bro, I'm telling you, he stepped into a wrong muaythai gym in his neighborhood and got hit with something real hard, according to him probably by something non-notable, not a gnews worth.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - while it's fresh in my mind. To all deletionists who say a event is not notable because of its participants (Kevin comment) that can not be true. Do you think an NBA game between the Chicago Bulls and LA Lakers would be notable if nobodies were playing for the team in that specific game - of course it wouldn't be notable - it's the players as well as the team that make something notable, so I don't believe you can discount the importance of the participants as a counter argument jsmith006 (talk) 08:41, 2 July
- if there ever was a case of WP:BLUDGEON in an AfD this is it. endless trying to respond without providing evidence of reliable sources does not advance notability. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to accuse you - it's quite obvious ever since you got scared in the last big deletion Super Kombat and started jumping in with this isn't a vote. Your telling us not to reply with assumptions and motivations yet you don't blink an eyelid when your buddy Libstir goes around nominating pages without even notifying people. You really need to think about this from our viewpoint - imagine you had done a pretty good painting which was hanging on the wall and then someone comes and puts a big scratch through and says 'you better remove that' - this is how your friend does things. Oh and well done for the spinning backfist delete - that was actually quite amusing jsmith006 (talk) 09:52, 2 July
- wow spinning backfist, Jethrobot is picking up some kickboxing lingo, old school but, notable for sure.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before these guys are gonna help us with our kickboxing pages – they’ve had quite an education these last few days jsmith006 (talk) 09:57, 2 July
- Look, I'm not against martial arts or anything. I do some MMA in my spare time (though I don't claim to be advanced or anything). It sounds like you two are trying to take up an "ignore all rules" argument (yes, this is a policy at Wikipedia). You might consider reading this essay on what this policy means to some editors, though. But you might consider using this to your advantage here. I know this is weird because I just voted delete, but I want to show that I'm trying to discuss things here in good faith. I just don't think there's enough coverage independent of the subject, and I try to uphold the policy of independent sources where I am able. I don't really know LibStar (I only started editing regularly here about two weeks ago) and I don't know either of you well enough to be biased against you. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 09:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok Jethrobot - you aren't the source of the problem and I'm willing to listen to sensible (and courteous) comments. You can see I can admit when I'm wrong and I try and help all new editors but I won't sit back, roll over and expose my belly and let someone delete my pages esp. when I believe they are notable and valid within the world of kickboxing and esp. not when it is done in a sneaky, duplicitous manner. The guy involved is right now going through all of the K-1 regional events and when they’re gone, what next. Any new editors watching these comments are going to think, why bother, if every time I create a page, it could be gone without warning.jsmith006 (talk) 10:30, 2 July
- Jethrobot - Have read that article and it was quite enlightening - thank-you. I seriously do believe that Libstar needs to have a look "Don’t follow written rules mindlessly” but I don't think we are breaking any rules - we have a number of sources (which have been shot down without consideration), the events are notable etc etc. I also believe that we have also clearly justified in our opposition to the deletion of these pages in that it sets a precedent for other notable pages to be deleted because certain individuals disagree on what is notable - typing into GNews isn't a good way of doing this & please Libstar could you try and offer some constructive critism instead of your extremely brief posts. Some of the pages you guys have nominated I agree in on but definately not anything to do with K-1, It's Showtime, SuperKombat or SuperLeague as these are/were the big boys in kickboxing. If I had created a series of pages on minor UK Muaythai events (I'm from UK) then I could understand these nominations - proof I don't think everything deserves a page like Watson would try to confer.jsmith006 (talk) 12:24, 2 July
- Hey Smith, these guys have been joking all along, it was just us who took it seriously. And Jethrobot, don't ever throw a spinning backfist against opponent, if blocked correctly you gonna break your forearm. When i was in thailand it a was a big no no. Only a few pro athletes like Dzhabar Askerov can do that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2011 (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.