User talk:Buddy23Lee/2011 Archive
Older content can be found at in the 2010 Archive. Even older content can be found at in the 2009 Archive.
Sergio Penha
Hello Buddy23Lee, thank you for your contribution to the Sergio Penha article. I am not an expert on the subject but, on a search for sources, his main claims to fame seemed to be: (1) high rank, and (2) having coached some famous fighters. I did not believe that these two points demonstrated notability sufficiently. Rank, in itself, is not necessarily a demonstration of notability, and notability is not inherited by association with notable people. If you have relevant expertise, please do expand the article to demonstrate notability, otherwise it could be nominated for deletion in the future. Thanks again for your contribution. Janggeom (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Understood sir. Though I hold no particular loyalty (or even knowledge really) regarding Mr. Penha or his organization, doing some reading about him I did feel that he may have had some limited notability within BJJ beyond just his rank or coaching. Given the somewhat ambiguous nature of notability, I'm certainly willing to admit I could be wrong about this. Perhaps we should more formerly nominate him for deletion and see what others think? I'm always deferential to the community consensus and, of course, your veteran editor knowledge. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that you have more knowledge of BJJ than me (I know relatively little about it), so if you feel that the subject is notable (i.e., enough to remove the proposal for deletion), I'd encourage you to improve the article. (This is a sincere encouragement, by the way; if you can improve the article and it turns out that notability can be demonstrated, I have no intention of nominating the article for deletion again.) Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! It looks like a good start, I'd add a brief line as to why they are individually notable (with a source) before moving to the main space, I'm guessing anyone 6th or above will have some wins over and/or coaches big names at the very least. It also stops Joe Blogs adding his name with no explanation. --Natet/c 14:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Nate, that's what I was afraid of, but I agree it's a good idea. Once I get get them all listed and sourced I'll hit you up for another review. Oh, and no worries on the delay. My sandbox isn't going anywhere. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking good, just a word of warning words like "renowned" and "legendary" are best left out as they have a certain POV tone to them (also they are exaclty the kind of fake puff used by Grandmasters of "created last week" MAs). I've also change the wording to Jiu-Jitsu practitioners rather than Jiu-Jitsoka as it seems to use a Japanese suffice for a Brazilian art (even acknowledging the origins) and I've never really heard it used. The only other thing I'd suggest would be putting a little bit about the BJJ rank structure in the "Highest graded" section I've put something together from the Ranking article into as a 1st pass but it will want refining and inclusion of some of the more relevant bits (re why so few high grades) from elsewhere in it. --Natet/c 11:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
MMA Barnstar
Wow, thanks for bestowing that Barnstar on me. I just do the MMA updating for fun, but am glad somebody is noticing. Udar55 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- With pleasure good sir. That kind of work is critical to the MMA project. For example, the UFC 133 page will get hundreds of thousands of readers this month alone, just one of many things necessitating your frequent contributions. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Found him on sherdog, which is a good start for MMA but it will need more than 3 wins in minor promotions to establish nobility, also of the rest looks a bit exaggerated "Won Cage Rage in 2004" meant he won his mid-card fight at cage rage... --Natet/c 14:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Honestly it's pretty much there in my mind, I'd suggest that you make sure every paragrpah has a source, or two if they are lower quality i.e. simple web links to schools & the like; and that any links to sources are still valid. After that I'd put it up for good article review and see what they say, most reviews will go through and suggest a few points to fix, if they are sorted out it's done :) --Natet/c 09:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)