Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 7

Superkombat Fighting Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request the undeletion of Superkombat Fighting Championship (plus all its pages - the years), because a mistake was made back in time. First of all this article had been deleted several times in the past because in the beginning the kickboxing promotion was unknown. And also there was a war on Wikipedia from the MMA "users" against kickboxing, until new regulations.

My reasons are:

1. These are precious info for the history of the sport, SUPERKOMBAT of top promoter Eduard Irimia is considered the 2nd best promotion of Europe all-time after the Netherlands-based It's Showtime. Before it was called Local Kombat (2003-2013). SUPERKOMBAT had headquarters in Bucharest, Romania, but also in London, Las Vegas and New York City.

2. SUPERKOMBAT was named Promotion of the Year in 2011 in front of GLORY (Ultimate Glory), that now is according to the Kickboxing task force "the kickboxing's UFC - World No 1. promotion in the world". Additionally, In 2015 SUPERKOMBAT was nominated in the top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world.

3. GLORY champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY title challengers Benjamin Adegbuyi, Daniel Ghiță, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Anderson Silva, Yousri Belgaroui and Yoann Kongolo competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY tournament winners Ismael Londt and D'Angelo Marshall competed in SUPERKOMBAT. Other top 10 kickboxers in their divisions competed in SUPERKOMBAT: Roman Kryklia (currently #2 heavyweight), Zabit Samedov (current #6 heavyweight), Murat Aygün (current #8 heavyweight), Tarik Khbabez (current #9 heavyweight), Felipe Micheletti (current #8 light heavyweight), Zinedine Hameur-Lain (current #10 light heavyweight), Igor Bugaenko (current #6 middleweight), Jamie Bates (current #5 welterweight) and many more from the past rankings. Several of these are SUPERKOMBAT products, it is proved that no other promotion has been feeding GLORY like SUPERKOMBAT.

4. SUPERKOMBAT is not on Wikipedia, but even regional kickboxing promotions are allowed, such as King in the Ring, W5, Global Fighting Championship and more. Just saying, make justice for SUPERKOMBAT.

5. SUPERKOMBAT had received coverage from the largest European newspapers such as MARCA, Gazeta Sporturilor etc. It had a contract with the most known sports European channel Eurosport and also with CBS Sports in the United States of America. SUPERKOMBAT's official YouTube channel has fights with over 1 million views. 1 and 2

6. SUPERKOMBAT only in its SUPERKOMBAT Academy invested 5 million dollars. source

7. SUPERKOMBAT was still deleted, although 5 people said to Keep it and 3 to Delete it (4 with the nominator). The nominator Jayjg retired later from Wikipedia.

8. Superkombat breaks attendance record in Europe Superkombat garnered an astounding 34,000 people in Comănești. The previous record was set over nine years ago at the Amsterdam Arena in the Netherlands during the K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Amsterdam.

9. Superkombat co-promoted together with K-1, including at the K-1 finals with Superkombat offering them their fighters. Nearly all the fighters in K-1 were from Superkombat in 2012. https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/4/17/4235276/superkombat-partnership-k-1-k1-grand-prix Superkombat officially ends partnership with K-1]

10. Superkombat appears in the movie Creed II, the ring advertizing with Superkombat source

.karellian-24 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide the best two or three sources that count toward WP:N? All the rest doesn't really matter if you can't. The bar for articles that don't meet WP:N is very high indeed and the closer has significant discretion when considering how to treat those WP:IAR arguments. Hobit (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Here they are, basically 2 sources saying Superkombat is a big kickboxing promotion, being named Promotion of the Year in 2011 and being nominated among the top 4 promotions in the world four years later in 2015. 3rd and 4th sources, Superkombat is a broadcast on CBS Sports Network and on Eurosport. Is that enough? If not, find out Glory champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in Superkombat. Glory now is the kickboxing's UFC.—.karellian-24 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another highly valid source for re-creation. Superkombat breaks attendance record in Europe. —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of any of the numerous deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does the appellant have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. I don't work in sports, just a kickboxer editor asa hobby. It is a bit hilarous because Superkombat is not on Wikipedia, when there are valid reasons. Everything from Romania is rejected at the highest level, otherwise I can't explain! The article was well written, it does not even need a draft. I can just correct it a bit. See this: Superkombat breaks attendance record in Europe. —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft if that is what the appellant is requesting, but, in view of the history, the appellant should be aware that the reviewers will be skeptical, and that the title may be salted if the draft isn't a reasonable effort, and that the question about conflict of interest must be answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. No evidence or rationale provided in support of the assertion that the consensus at the previous and numerous AFDs is incorrect. The nominator's submissions, particularly the writing of Superkombat in all caps, tends to suggest a conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are you serious? And this is an argument? Superkombat Fighting Championship is written "SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship", it is their official stylization, not mine. I have 2 and a half years on Wikipedia, was Superkombat on Wikipedia to be part of a conflict of interest? I am mainly editing kickboxing. See ONE Championship, we refer to this promotion as "ONE". Glory is also stylized "GLORY" in their official description on the official site: "The world's premier kickboxing league, GLORY World Series maintains six different weight classes." This is really big injustice, think before! I just want to emphasis it is about this promotion and the people to read. I did not even know how to request this review but I got help from another administrator. —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Being World's No 1 kickboxing promotion in 2011 and Top 4 in 2015, is not enough for you? Being live on CBS Sports and Eurosport for years? Or providing most of the top fighters in Glory (kickboxing's UFC) now? Superkombat also co-promoted with K-1 at their finals. Superkombat officially ends partnership with K-1 —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Superkombat also appears in the movie Creed II, the ring advertizing with Superkombat source —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I asked .karellian-24| to supply links or references for "coverage from the largest European newspapers". Has that happened yet? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry, here is it. MARCA and More, Frank Muñoz after the win became in 2013 Sportsman of the Year in Menorca and also honorary citizen, also received the gold distincios of Spain. And from Gazeta Sporturilor, source. From Prosport, source. I can also bring multiple sources where Superkombat are called "giants" or the "promotion No 1 of Europe". But all the sources were there in the former article, just that a mistake was made.—.karellian-24 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Largest martial arts magazine in Germany had also often sent teams in Romania for coverage even on Youtube. Bloody Elbow in the USA had also written about Superkombat multiple times. Here the first 6 sources say Superkombat is big or the largest promotion in Europe.—.karellian-24 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for letting me know about the issues with style at One Championship. I have fixed them. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In this case the appellant has posted at length on my user talk page, whether because there is a disorienting visual pattern or for some other reason, and the post on my user talk page seems incomprehensible, so I am not changing my Endorse, but have struck my Allow Re-Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, undeletions I request of those pages. My English may not be very convincing. —.karellian-24 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The appellant has again posted on my talk page, asking how long the Deletion Review runs. This time their post is short enough that I understand it. I answered that a Deletion Review normally runs for a week. I see no reason to change my post, let alone to ask anyone else to change their posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draftspace. Most of the arguments the OP makes are completely irrelevant to notability but a few of the sources provided do indicate that the subject is likely notable. The highly chaotic nature of this request suggests to me that it would be a mistake to simply restore the deleted pages directly to mainspace. Almost certainly the page(s) need further work and updating with WP:RS and preferably should be routed through AfC. In fact, given how many times the page had been deleted, I think that routing its recreation through AfC should be mandated here as a part of the DRV close. Nsk92 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The subject is indeed notable. It should be on Wikipedia and if I remember well there are well written all these articles. I will personally bring improvements. But imagine I work at kickboxing history for 2 months maybe, what guarantee I have it will be kept after so much injustice? Do you know how much work it is? Better would be to restore it completely. I really appreciate it if you decide to undelete and correct this big injustice. Maybe it was not notable at the beginning of 2011, but at the end of 2011 it was already the world's No 1 kickboxing promotion according to WIPU. And from there because it was previously deleted they kept deleting. In 2015 it was nominated again between top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world. Today we have on Wikipedia even regional promotions, 20 or 30th worldwide, but not Superkombat which is important part of the kickboxing history. —.karellian-24 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Stokes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. The closer of this deletion discussion erred in that the close was "Notability is not inherited and therefore the consensus is this doesn't meet GNG." emphasis added. But "notability being inherited" was never an issue in the discussion. And was not an issue in the article.

2. Furthermore, the closer did not take note that 2 of the votes were by editors who relied on an essay. While ignoring GNG.

3. Also, the closer did not take note of the fact that up until the last substantive entry in the AfD, a half dozen GNG-supporting articles had not been considered by the voters. That last post set forth those GNG-supporting articles, which satisfy GNG. Specifically:

a) "Fallujah "Point Man" Earns Silver Star" in Newsweek, which has a link to b) tv station KCRA coverage (and mentions c) Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow);

d) "Marine Cpl. Sean A. Stokes, 24, Auburn; killed by improvised explosive" in the LA Times; and

e) "War hero awarded Silver Star after his death" in the San Francisco Chronicle; and

f) "LOP mourns Marine's death" in Gold Country Media; and

g) "The American Platoon; The Battle of Fallujah and its impact on a group of young Marines" in the National Review has a few paragraphs on him.

4. I was unable to inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion, as closer has limited those who can leave talk page messages for closer.

2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC) ~[reply]

• Overturn. Perhaps the closer thought this was like most of the other soldier articles being sent to AFD recently where some editors stated that having a military ship named after you was a notable award, and others argued you didn't inherit notability because a ship was named after you. Or was it because I mentioned he was notable enough to have coverage of his him and his historic battle featured in a notable book and an episode of a show on the History Channel? Coverage equals notability. Plus reliable sources found covering him as mentioned above. Dream Focus 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with trout When you have this level of RS coverage, an "it's not notable" !vote should not be accorded any weight at all. The real question is whether votes based on WP:SOLDIER are reasonable. WP:SNG makes it clear that they are not. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the closing admin has been notified by DreamFocus already, and didn't indicate an inclination to participate here. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further dive into WP:SOLDIER, it basically starts with the GNG, and elaborates a number of categories of people who should be presumed notable in absence of clear, obvious RS evidence, such as general/flag officers, capital ship captains, and the like. It's simply not possible to pass the GNG and "fail" SOLDIER, because of how that essay is structured in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• relist OK, I get why the closer didn't relist--it had been listed a ton. But we *finally* got a real discussion of sources. I think the numbers make a keep close hard. I don't think NC is quite right. So I'd say the best thing to do here is a relist with a remand to discuss the sources. Or probably better, the closer should have chimed in with their thoughts on the sources and let someone else close. But you can't delete material with sources that *appear* to be so good without discussion of those sources. I'm also okay with overturning to NC or even overturning to keep if that's the outcome here, but I think relist was the best option. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I discussed the sources. The closer saw the sources. Everyone here can see the sources. The sources don't merely "appear" to be so good. They are so good. We can consider the sources at deletion review. This would not be the first time that a deletion review ended w a keep because the sources clearly in the eyes of the reviewers met gng. And as Jclemens says, the votes based on Soldier were not reasonable ones to be given any weight either. Finally - adding to how peculiar the closer's actions were - the afd had just been relisted two days prior. And these refs were shared .. and for some reason within hours of when they were shared, the closer rushed to close the Afd. Very peculiar.2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the page was based on a number of unreliable sources not amounting to SIGCOV in multiple RS. I assume that the IP above is the same one who added the low-quality Newsweek article to the page yesterday, but as they refuse to create an account its impossible to know. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the a-g sources linked above in this DRV, please articulate which, if any, you believe to not count as contributing to notability, and why--it's not clear to me that any of them are obviously unreliable, so I'd appreciate your reasoning. Also, please stop ABF'ing about the IP address: he's arguing from sources and policy. If you suspect a sock, WP:SPI is thataway.... Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained my issues with the sources at the AFD. In relation to the IP, I do not AGF when an IP appears out of nowhere and argues policy. Of course they're a returning User, but the entire setup of WP allows IP's to edit easily, while proving them as socks is time-consuming and too frequently inconclusive.Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any opinion about this article, but we really need to knock on the head this argument that new users can't possibly argue properly. My first edit to Wikipedia, in 2007, was to an AfD discussion and I was perfectly capable of citing policy although I had never edited before. Where do people get this idea from that it is impossible for a new editor to be intelligent, or simply to be able to read? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you first edit from an IP in 2007 or did you create an account? Clearly the IP is not a new User. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you must know I created an account, but that question is totally irrelevent to my point. As you seem unwilling to take the few seconds needed to see my first contribution it was this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Mztourist So, to make sure I understand your arguments, this is the sum total of your objections to all of the sources presented both in the AfD and/or as repeated in the DRV request above? Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the Newsweek article is rubbish for the reasons stated. The Marines story is WP:PRIMARY. LA Times is just a very brief note of California's dead in OIF. The DoD Silver Star list just states that he was a recipient. Military Times just gives his medal citations. In relation to We Were One: Shoulder to Shoulder with the Marines Who Took Fallujah see the Publisher's Weekly review which states "Though these Marines fought with great courage and the details of their battle make gripping reading, the author's uncritical cheerleading reduces their accomplishment to fantasy heroics." Sean Andrew Stokes Memorial is obviously a blog and the story is written by the same author who wrote We Were One. D-Day Fallujah on History Channel is of dubious reliability. The Wikileaks story is about the incident in which he died but doesn't identify him by name. So to me its a scrappy collection of low quality sources that do not aggregate to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm asking about the sources a-g posted here in the DRV. The LA times link above is this. In no way, shape, or form does it remotely resemble "a very brief note of California's dead in OIF" as you've characterized it immediately above. I'm guessing that you read a different LA Times piece, and didn't notice that this link was to a different and more substantial piece directly relating to this subject. Am I correct? Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm referring to all the references on the page. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please participate in the discussion by reading and commenting the sources provided above. I am unclear why you are commenting on the sources in the article, rather than those raised in the AfD and/or repeated here. Notability decisions are to be based on the existence of sources, not the sources currently in the article, per WP:NEXIST. Again, please review sources a-g listed above and articulate how any of them are not independent reliable sources that cover the article subject in detail. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Temporary Undelete. Can't decide whether close is appropriate without seeing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for DRV. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 04:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The numerical preponderence of "delete"s makes a delete closure in one way understandable, but a full assessment of an AFD requires the strength of arguments to be analyzed. In this discussion, a number of sources were presented as evidence of notability. Apart from a WP:BITEing of an IP-editor along with unsupported allegations of the IP being a banned user, the entire argument on the delete side amounted to "fails WP:SOLDIER" or something along those lines, with no arguments as to why the sources were insufficient. As such, the merits of the argument should carry the day for the "keep" side, and if the "delete" side still wishes to delete, some arguments refuting the impact of the presented source material must be made. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle see my comments on all the page sources above. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus:
  • • Closing is not a vote count, but votes should be counted.
    • Deletion is not warranted by a naive vote count.
    • Deletion is not warranted by strength of arguments.
    • The strongest arguments were that the subject passes GNG, and GNG is always an argument in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I was saddened to now read this exchange.[1]2603:7000:2143:8500:90B2:2512:1834:A779 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to 'No consensus'. As noted by others, all of the 'delete' votes, except one, were perfunctory and did not try to justify their opinion(s) that the article fails WP:GNG/WP:SOLDIER, while several of the 'keep' votes discussed the sources in significant detail. Moreover, as the OP notes above, the 'Notability is not inherited' rationale invoked by the closer looks completely mysterious and appears to be some sort of a misdirected supervote. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The AFD discussion was almost entirely bereft of reasoned discussion, dominated by unsubstantiated assertions on both sides about the reliability of sources. Since several presumably reliable newspaper sources were listed, and none of the delete !voters made any substantive arguments to undermine their weight, whatever balance there was in the discussion tilted to keep. The closer's "not inherited" rationale is unexplained and not reflective of the discussion. It should therefore be overturned absent a substantive response from the closer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]