Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Lee (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lee

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. The Db-repost was declined as the article was deemed to be completely different yet the same article was very recently deleted by Db-repost - and posted again. I believe the deletion was correct as the reasons for the original AfD deletion remain unchanged. The subject has had no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lee has been subject of multiple independent articles from national or international media and clearly meets the notability criteria as per WP:MMABIO. It's possible that previous versions of this page were not made properly, but the current version which I made contains references to multiple articles about Angela Lee in reputable, reliable, significant news sources such as Bloomberg, The Canadian Press, The Straits Times, The Daily Mirror, The Independent etc. I don't think you could find a clearer case of an MMA fighter meeting WP:MMABIO in terms of independent press coverage. Sadoka74 (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sadoka74. I created the article after its first deletion with similar reasons and see it's back up, which I support. I do understand Angela Lee does not meet all notability guidelines, but then again, I respectfully disagree with those in this case, seeing how many respectable media outlets write about her. Lotte Belice (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for MMA fighters is at WP:NMMA and it's clear she does not meet that. The sources given in the article all amount to routine sports coverage--results and promotion of upcoming fights. She does not have the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand your point here at all. 90% of the references are either features exclusively on her or exclusive interviews with her. If multiple interviews and features in major international newspapers and media outlets isn't significant independent coverage than what is?Sadoka74 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre and post fight interviews are routine coverage and/or promotional so they're considered routine coverage. Fighting for a second tier MMA organization, even for its title, is not considered to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so interviews pre and post fight don't count, but interviews that take place when she hasn't got a fight booked do? Please refer me to the place in WP:NMMA where it states this as I must have missed it.Sadoka74 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me what in WP:NMMA she meets.Mdtemp (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has been the subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations. Sadoka74 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read WP:NMMA to see that is not in the criteria listed.Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadoka74 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. The actual notability guideline is at WP:NMMA --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she meets 1 of the 3 criteria supporting notability and none of the 2 criteria supporting deletion. Werda66 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets "multiple independent articles" criteria as there is tons of local and international press, including some in the media that have described her as "the face of MMA in Asia," potentially "the highest paid teenager in the history of MMA", and "the biggest MMA star in Asia." Aifanp (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2016 (PST)

Potentially being the highest paid teenager in MMA is not a notability criteria. Being a high paid minor league baseball player doesn't show notability. Non-neutral fancruft and minor league success don't show notability. Why do all these users without user pages choose to ignore the MMA notability criteria?Mdtemp (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Definitely does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. The refusal of those voting to keep the article to use the actual guidelines is disconcerting. As far as meeting WP:GNG goes, I don't see the significant independent coverage requirement being met. I agree with Mdtemp that the coverage seems routine sports reporting. Most of the coverage stems from her OneFC title fight (a second tier championship that doesn't show notability) that, at best, can be considered WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the comments I made above, based on what was in the article and what had been presented at the time. However, additional sources have been presented which compel me to change my vote to Keep because it appears she does meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The girl is notable:

1. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/sport/bruce-lee-one-championship-mma/

2. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/singapore-mma-star-angela-lee-ready-for-one-pride-bout-with-natalie-gonzales-hills.html

3. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/mma/angela-lee-looking-to-make-history-and-pioneer-womens-mma-at-one-ascent-to-power-a7003626.html

4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/mma/mma-superstar-angela-lee-insists-7957412

5. http://www.esq.sg/women/women-we-love/Angela-Lee

6. http://www.shape.com.sg/fitness/you-won%E2%80%99t-believe-what-mma-fighter-angela-lee-has-eat-after-every-competition

7. http://combatpress.com/2015/09/one-championships-angela-lee-a-proud-member-of-the-evolve-fight-team/

8. http://www.mmamania.com/2015/10/14/9528593/one-unstoppable-rise-of-singaporean-superstar-angela-lee-mma

9. http://mmajunkie.com/2016/05/one-championship-42s-angela-lee-embracing-position-as-face-of-womens-mma-in-asia

10. http://www.mmaweekly.com/newly-crowned-one-atomweight-champ-angela-lee-signs-huge-new-contract

11. http://www.kollab.nyc/the-unstoppable-wave-that-is-angela-lee/

12. https://sports.vice.com/latinamerica/article/angela-lee-es-la-primera-campeona-atomo-de-one-championship

Though only 1 year fighting professionaly, she was a 2016 Female Fighter of the Year World MMA Awards nominee ("Awarded to the leading female mixed martial artist for her contribution to the sport both inside and outside the Ring, Cage or Octagon"):

http://mmajunkie.com/2016/01/world-mma-awards-nominees-set-with-new-analyst-mma-programming-categories

After winning the ONE female Atomweight belt, Fight Matrix also started ranking her:

http://www.fightmatrix.com/mma-ranks/womens-strawweight/ Bigbaby23 (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC notability criteria: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft instead for now as the article could be acceptable but it also still needs better, thus Draft for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as per the above sources; also, not only is she now notable, but she defeated the Deep Jewels 105-pound champion Mei Yamaguchi, who herself is notable [10]. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:03, 18 May 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.