Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Gall

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. There were a couple of suggestions to userfy, but nobody so far as come forth and said they would take it. If anybody wants to work on this (by which I mean, hold on to it until he meets notability), just ask me or any admin to restore and userfy it for you (or move to draft). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Gall

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NMMA. He has only fought 1 fight in a major organization, not the 3 required by the guidelines. Rockchalk717 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. No objections to userfying article until he becomes notable.Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:NMMA, but I think passes WP:GNG. The main reason is that he is the fighter that is supposed to fight CM Punk in his MMA debut. CM Punk's debut is gaining a lot of coverage and makes sense considering the links between MMA and WWE. This goes beyond WP:INHERENT since his proposed opponent, Gall, is gaining coverage in of himself due to being the proposed opponent. Here are some examples - [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. I think these go beyond WP:ROUTINE because they don't just give a fight recap, talk about "fights to make next", etc. They go into detail about Gall, how his fights impact the debut of CM Punk, and go into far more detail than a fighter that didn't even make TV of a UFC Fight Night card. Also, Gill has gained coverage not normal to a guy - his lone fight was covered in detail abroad (see [6]) - nor normal coverage for MMA - financial implications are covered by Forbes (see [7]). Also, the proposed fight appears delayed. Rare for a guy with one fight that wasn't even on TV to have joke top ten lists on who he should fight next (see [8]). Special case here, but I do think he meets GNG, therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of hype for a fight that hasn't happened. It's worthy of pro wrestling. It seems like there are elements of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:BLP1E involved. It may well be that Gall will be a notable MMA fighter, but right now he's not there and I don't think all the coverage for an fight that may not happen is a guarantee of notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails the narrow MMA test, passes the broader GNG. Punk's made him mainstream famous for at least fifteen minutes. The MMA one is only for fighters nobody's really talking about. Not sure which impossible standard we use for undefeated televised champion Justin Gaethje, but Gall's another story. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how his "15 mintues of fame" constitutes notability, which is not considered temporary, or how this is not a case of WP:BLP1E. As for Gaethje, he doesn't have an article because he has never fought at the highest level and appearing on television is not a guarantor of notability. The new proposed notability criteria for MMA being discussed at WT:NSPORT#MMA fighter notability proposal would include him, so if you feel his omission is an injustice feel free to comment there. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Newell's 15 minutes are up, and you figured he passed, before he'd even had his shot at Gaethje's belt. Mainstream sources generally find the unusual notable, same as here. Gall's had two notable fights, so 1E doesn't apply. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I had to vote to keep or delete, I'd vote to delete because so far I don't think the case has been made yet for notability. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG because of a pro wrestling style feud that smacks of BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I do think the odds are in his favor that we will eventually meet WP:NMMA, but he's not there yet and there's no guarantee that he will make it. My choice would be to userfy the article until such time as he meets WP:NMMA so that the article doesn't have to be recreated from scratch. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a particularly interesting situation. It's clear the fight received additional coverage from WP:ROUTINE. The stories are more about the fight than the fighter. If we look at the fighter alone, they are essentially WP:BLP1E -- the other fights are not notable. They're from very small or amateur promotions. In both cases, we fundamentally have to look at WP:LASTING to which I doubt there is any. As such, I don't think we should have an article because there was hype about one event. We should have articles on athletes of accomplishment and their career and coverage of it as a whole is not there. Mkdw ^talk 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news covered both of his pro fights. A notable debut, a notable set-up bout and (eventually) one of the most notable matches in UFC history. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I know its a different situation regarding scope, the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao fight had an article 2 years before the actual fight and well before anyone thought the fight would actually happen. The prospect of that fight was lasting, even if it had never taken place. Also, wikipedia covers what is notable, not just what is accomplished. As I have said before, being good is not the same as being notable. Eddie the Eagle was notable not for being good, but for being not good. I understand the WP:BLP1E concerns, but its really two events - his first UFC fight and the proposed fight against CM Punk. That is two events, even if one is only proposed. The coverage was about the fight, but detailed the fighter as well. I agree its a specific situation, but I think that goes toward keep based on the coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2016 (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.