Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrik Kincl (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Kincl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am renominating this article for a better debate, as I think the 1st nomination was not discussed thoroughly enough. The subject is not meeting requirements of English WP notability for MMA fighters (WP:NMMA).

The sources on the article mainly consist of database entries, interviews, subject's personal website and routine fight results. No indication of independent fact checking. An article about signing his autobiography at a book store. Biography in a Czech sports site, which doesn't appear to be very neutral based on the section titled "Patrik Kincl - the birth of an MMA god”.

In addition, the use of the subject personal website biography twice and the tone used shows potential WP:PROMO.  Others sources found after good faith search (see first nomination) do not appear to be reliable and independent sources.   No indication that we have the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.  

As user Papaursa mentioned in the first nomination, all coverage is very typical sports reporting that can be found for any fighters, which is nothing that shows particular notability.  Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No additional sources have been found to change my analysis from the previous discussion. Clearly fails WP:NMMA and I don't believe the coverage presented in either the article or previous AfD is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or any other WP notability criteria as it is generally routine, database, not independent and/or unreliably sourced. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as when I first nominated it. Doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2024 (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.