Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura D'Auguste

: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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

=[[Laura D'Auguste]]=

:{{la|Laura D'Auguste}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laura_D%27Auguste Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Laura D'Auguste}})

Female MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA. Winning a lower level championship does not show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

:Speedy Delete, not even a bunch of passing mentions. Like 3. The sources do not support her own article. Maybe she can't fight her way up the ranks to earn a shot at an article. As of now does not pass GNG! CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete This article could not be speedy deleted. Anything requiring a comprehensive breakdown of citations provided and that has a claim of notability must go to AFD. That being said it doesn't appear that this person meets WP:NMMA by having at least 3 top tier MMA fights. Interviews are likely to call into WP:ROUTINE. Mkdwtalk 18:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete She definitely doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't see the coverage necessary to show she meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards a Weak Keep but only if the original editor has a bit more time to answer what is being said and if needed then correct issues and find better references to support claims. Chunlinc (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

::The original editor created the article on 5 January 2006‎. 7 days is already part of the AFD process and wanting more time is not a valid rationale to keep an article. Mkdwtalk 18:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

: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.