Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luiz Palhares

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.

Luiz Palhares

Luiz Palhares (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)

Lack of notability, rank signifies time spent practicing at black belt level, and doesn't imply merit. Having won PanAm competitions in the sport doesn't make one notable for a stand alone page either. There are many people who won Pan Am competitions that do not have a stand-alone page. Lack of third party independent sources that are verifiable. The one external source noted used self-reporting from a previously deleted wikipedia page that was created in 2012, that has subsequently been deleted due to lack of notability and independent, verifiable sources. Submitted correctly on behalf of nominator Californiatitan by Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The
  barely notable, this nomination for deletion makes no sound policy based argument for such. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We agree that per wikipedia policy being included in a list doesn't make you notable for a stand alone page. As far as the
  Pan-American Championship (jiu jitsu), and the Senior 2 division doesn't get a mention in the "Divisions" section of the infobox there. So while he may be able to get credit for these wins as a teacher, they are not notable enough even in his own sport. As a matter of fact I don't know any jiu jitsu practitioners that have won Senior level championships, that were deemed notable enough for a wiki stand alone page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.108.80 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You have zero contributions outside of this AfD. Pray tell, what brought you here?

Pan-American Championship (jiu jitsu), since his wins the division has been renamed Master 2. It is for the sake of brevity, rather than notability, that the article only includes a table of results for the adult black-belt division. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The IP is almost certainly Californiatitan who also has no edits outside this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article's sources don't support notability via
  WP:GNG because they're either listings of results or ranks, or a promotional interview for a seminar he was giving. Even if Senior-2 level results show notability (a highly debatable point), a look at the IBJJF results would not support notability since several of his titles were "won" by being the only entrant and none of the divisions he medaled in had more than 3 competitors. That's far from the "several dozen" threshold mentioned in the criteria and certainly argues against those titles being significant. Papaursa (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep - Winning an international competition is a pretty good indicator of notability in general. The case for notability is boosted by RS coverage such as [2] also helps, although admittedly notability is pretty borderline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you actually look at the IBJJF site's results for the 2000 event that article refers to, you'd see he was the only entrant in the division (which was super heavyweight not heavyweight) and that it was an age group division (Senior-2) not the open adult division. Showing up is not grounds for notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing his 2000 entry is super-heavyweight. It says so in the article infobox. You seem to be overlooking his wins in the absolute (open) division which would seem, according to your own arguments to be far more worthy of note? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article referenced by ThaddeusB says he was "last year's Pan American heavyweight champion"--I was just correcting the division and clarifying that it was an age group title. The other division he won is also age group limited and had only 3 entrants so it's more impressive only because it means he won at least 1 match. Tiny divisions don't come close to meeting the criteria at

WP:NSPORTS isn't met since winning an age group title is not the same as "competing at the highest level" (especially with very limited competition). Apparently he has no appearances, or at least medals, from the world championships. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are going to jump on people, you should probably make sure you understand what they wrote first. I never said anything about the reference referring to a championship. I said 1) he was won an international competition (as establish by existing article sourcing) and 2) references such as the one I provided ALSO help establish notability (under general guidelines). The two thoughts are independent evidences of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "jump" on anyone. I thought it reasonable to point out major errors in the article you highlighted as being "reliable" and helping to meet GNG. I also don't believe that the competitions he won are at the highest level or meet the conditions at either NSPORT or MANOTE. My point was that I disagree with both of your premises. To quote another editor, "make sure you understand what they wrote first." Since we're beginning to stray from the topic, let us leave it at that. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, its not a "major error" in the source and as an established newspaper it is definitely considered a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm a big fan of having a healthy catalog of articles regarding the former and current masters and grandmasters of BJJ, as has been steadily accumulating in the List of Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners. As a coral belt, Mr. Palhares would fall in this category. I would personally believe his notability predicated on his standing within art of jiu-jitsu, more than his moderate competition achievements. While his particular rank does not confer notability in itself, I think it's reflective of the notability he independently possesses, as with most, if not all practitioners who have reached that pinnacle. Buddy23Lee (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy23Lee, you cannot recommend a keep based on personal preference when notability, and significant independent sources other than promotional have not been established according to wikipedia criteria. There may be a repeat of the earlier created article in 2012, where this one too was created by a user that has no other edits who may just be a friend of his Sciambro which would be against wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiatitan (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "it was deleted previously argument" has already been discredited (it was deleted voluntarily, not via AfD). Repeating it does not help your case. A proven conflict of interest is not relevant to a deletion discussion, so your suspicion that one might exist is completely irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but smile when an someone with no edit history gets suspicious regarding the motives of someone else with no edit history. How do we know you (Californiatitan) is not just as likely an enemy of Sciambro, which is likely against some other unnamed Wikipedia policy? All sillyness aside, you can take heart Californiatitan, as AfDs regarding martial arts bios tend close as delete, even when there is little to no consensus, so you're probably going to achieve your aim, whatever your true motivations may be. Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Mainly concerning
  WP:MANOTE
  . A few points:
  • The wording for
    WP:MANOTE#Martial artists
    § 4 came about in large part to the BJJ situation where notability was being claimed for success in blue belt competitions. The idea is that competition is supposed to be at the highest level. It is for the same reason that Junior and (although not explicitly said) other age dependent (or special) groupings. If there are 1-3 competitors in a subdivision that also has issues although in this case § 1 (again explicitly read) seems to refer to the entire competition.
  • By long standing consensus high rank does not confer notability. This was a direct response to all the mega dans being claimed by who knows who. That said I would like to see articles on the major players of major martial arts styles not just dependent on competition results - certainly a number of deserving individuals of different martial arts don't compete. Still - I can not vote Keep based on the color of his belt. We need to see why he is important.
  • As soon as training Seals comes up my eyes role and this bull sees red flags - see the article's Talk page for another questioning bull.
  • Finally - I seem to remember the previous withdrawing of the article was in direct response to an impending AfD. I could be wrong and there should be no prejudice against this article. If the previous AfD had actually started it would be relevant as a possible attempted end run.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, the IP complaining on the article talk page and Californiatitan are clearly the same person. Presumably he created an account so that he could send the article to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (or not) - but there is nothing inherently wrong in that. Just one more person enthusiastic enough about a point that they create a SPA. Annoying to be sure but unless they all show up here nothing more.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly nothing wrong with it. I was just making it clear that it wasn't two people with the same opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the significant coverage to meet GNG and winning some small division senior age titles is not enough to meet NSPORT or MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage and his martial arts achievements don't meet
  WP:ILIKEIT. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2015 (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.