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. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kropschot[edit]

Joseph Kropschot (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)

Non-notable MMA fghter - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA with only a single pro fight in an organisation that isn't even second tier. PRehse (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [stricken per my comment below], because this latest comes across, in context which the deletion nominator ignores or is unaware of, as completely insane on the part of Wikipedia editors bent inexplicably upon deletion, in how they come across to the article creator (who is a new-ish editor with about 50 edits, and who appears to be a fan of Joseph Kropschot) and to myself (a Wikipedia editor with no previous experience on MMA articles, but with >10,000 articles created and >100,000 articles edited, if I recall correctly from counter pages that used to exist). I will explain further later as necessary about how this appears insane. But for now take a look at creator's Talk page, at Talk page of article, at previous AFD, at talk page of recent speedy delete, at the just-concluded deletion review. It was closed with note "restored by deleting admin. Can be taken to AfD again by any interested party", but that does not mean that someone has to take it to AfD again, particularly not without reviewing why the extraordinary occurrence of a deletion review leading to an article restoration happened.

The creator was advised in the first AFD a year ago that the article then would be deleted because the subject was an amateur. They waited until beyond when the subject had a pro bout and met the communicated standard. Now this new deletion nomination asserts the subject is "not even close" with only a single pro fight. Well, that is not valid as an argument, or soon will not be, because as has been noted, the subject is up for their second pro bout this weekend. During the course of this AFD it is guaranteed that the basis for the AFD will be be countered. And it is possible that new coverage of this 2nd bout will establish by wp:GNG that the subject is notable (and note, article creator, that GNG policy trumps any other guideline). Upon review of the notability guideline linked from wp:NMMA, now I do see a section, never yet alluded to in any communication with respect to this subject, that there is an arbitrary criteria that 3 pro bouts means a MMA person is notable. Well, that is evidence of Wikipedia insanity, IMHO, too, because what is the magic about 3? What, do you think a 23 year old MMA fighter undefeated as an amateur, with an amateur championship belt (which Kropschot has) and with 2 pro wins (which Kropchot might have by this weekend), say, is not going to get a third pro bout? And, why the hell didn't any of the multiple editors who are coming across as deletion-crazy to me now, why didn't any of them say this. They just have said, like here, without explaining, that the topic is obviously-to-them not notable. Okay, why the insansity, perhaps it is to protect innocent potential BLP subjects from harm somehow? Well, what is harmful? The article could use inline referencing to support the specific facts it puts forth, but what does the article say that could be construed as harmful? That the subject was born in San Ramon, California? That the subject is about 23 years old? Of course the subject was born some time and somewhere. Come on people, you are coming across as insane. It would be okay to tag the article for reference improvements. But the overall remedy is to drop this and for y'all collectively to go away, seriously. Get a life, Wikipedia editors. Drop this madness. --Doncram (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite a polemic, but I don't see your point. There is no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he needs 3 top tier professional fights, not 3 professional fights. I suggest you read WP:NMMA more carefully. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:NMMA in my discussions with them. And you can see me as a deletionist, but these are the policies of the project. If you wish for individual articles like this to be kept, you need to advocate for change on the standard, not just ask for exceptions to it. Also you can't predict that GNG can be satisfied at any point in time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the purpose of an encyclopedia is to have articles on people who are notable, not to have articles on people who may at some future point become notable. Kropschot is clearly in the latter category and not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he has no top tier MMA fights (and only 1 pro fight) to meet WP:NMMA. He's a very long way from showing notability as an MMA fighter. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMMA. Very poorly sourced article. SportingFlyer talk 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with John Pack Lambert's summary. This encylopedia welcomes bios of people who are notable, not so much those who might become notable. I'm the admin who deleted it the second time, participated in the deletion review (linked above in Doncram's post), and undeleted it per that discussion: my opinion counts no more (and no less) than anyone else's. – Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the most basic requirements of GNG if nothing else, notwithstanding the admirable screed above. Quite possible a matter of, in his own way, WP:TOOSOON, as if his career maintains trajectory he will undoubtedly achieve Wikinobility in the senior leagues. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JPL & Papaursa. The big failure of NMMA, and then subsequently of GNG shows this is not ready to be a BLP, especially with the high standards of sourcing required. The sources are merely mentions/statistics or opinion pieces, with maybe one with a small bit of information. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you to all who have commented; I am happy you enjoyed my "polemic"/"screed", or at least that you took my view seriously. I am maybe sorry for coming across that way, including my throwing around the word "insane". I hope I was clear that my use of that term was about how the Wikipedia processes and rules could be seen by a relative outsider, and I certainly did not mean to apply the adjective to any editor here (and I don't think anyone has taken it that way, either). Anyhow, I came to this topic from seeing what I perceived to be a very unfair/inappropriate process going on, the deletion review, which seemed to me to be bulldozing over a newish user. I said at the deletion review that I thought article re-creation would be better, perhaps with a new AFD happening, and I appreciate Athaenara's willingness to go along with that. At deletion review, one is not supposed to go into the notability of the topic, but rather only discuss the validity of the deletion action given what info was available from discussion at the administrator's Talk page or anywhere else. (Most often deletion review is about a close of an AFD given what was said in the AFD discussion, but there was no recent AFD here.) I appreciate there has been more direct discussion of the notability of Kropschot, here.

Upon further review of wp:NMMA, and given that I am not right now able to find any substantial coverage of the fight that was supposed to have taken place this last weekend, I do concede that the notability of the topic is not established. Some points that seem to matter is that there seems to have been extensive previous discussion setting up the NMMA standard, and that the standard highlights quality levels of MMA organizations (and Kropshot does not seem to be in the higher quality level), and that 3 pro bouts in the higher level seem to be required, not just one pro bout at any level. I note these points for reference to the editor who created the article and who seemed to think the process was unfair, referencing the previous AFD's guidance.

I don't object to this being closed "Delete" or even "Snow Delete" now, against my solitary-looking !vote above. Which I guess I should strike, in this edit. --Doncram (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (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.