Talk:Florendo M. Visitacion

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... well known martial artist. Subject of a NY Times obituary is a testament to his fame. --CrazyAces489 (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• He was dead when the article was deleted before. He hasn't gotten more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the DRV and an admin DGG [1] "the NYTtimes ref is a full obit, which is always accepted here as proof of notability . The original article is not all that useful, but I can see no possible objection to actually restoring it to your talk space , DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"

• I respect DGG, but I disagree with him on this. Regardless, his !vote doesn't carry more weight than mine (or yours). You are misrepresenting the DRV results. DRV allowed a re-write. They didn't say he was notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well... the issue is that while it could be seen as one RS that could count towards notability, it shouldn't be seen as something that would necessarily establish notability on that basis alone. The only time that an obituary would give absolute notability is if they were establishing something overwhelmingly notable, like winning a major award. This source was available at the prior AfD, where it wasn't really deemed to be enough to give complete notability. Right now what you need are additional sources like other newspaper articles about Visitacion. Offhand most of what I'm finding are articles reporting on his death (like this one), which isn't entirely a good sign. While they can to an extent be used as RS, we should be able to source an article to where there is more coverage than just people reporting on his death. If you can find someone who can translate Thai (WP:THAI is a good start) then this source may be useful. The thing is, notability is something that grows increasingly more strict each year and each year articles require more and more solid sources to show notability. Offhand I'm really not seeing much here to overturn the prior AfD since both of the article's sources were present at the prior AfD. I'll move this back into the draftspace, but CrazyAces489, I'd like to request that you submit this via AfC and that you not move articles to the mainspace yourself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned that a lot of this is unsourced - that's a huge WP:BLP issue since you need to have sources that back up all of the claims in the article. The obituaries do back up some, but not really all of the claims in a huge amount of detail. Now given the claims in the article I will say that I'll be pretty surprised if there aren't sources out there somewhere. Odds are that since this guy died pre-Internet, odds are that the coverage for him is likely not on the Internet and is probably in off Internet sources. Being on the Internet is handy, but not always a requirement. The main thing that's required here is that you be able to provide some proof that the sources exist and that they're in depth. I'd probably start by e-mailing Black Belt magazine, since they probably have covered the guy before at some point in time. Something else to consider is that many likely only covered him under his nickname, "Professor Vee", so you need to make searches that are limited to just that name. Only thing to be careful of is that there are a lot of self-published sources out there like this one that look legit but upon closer inspection show that they were published through Lulu or were otherwise written by someone and didn't undergo any sort of verifiable editorial oversight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• I do feel the need to say this though: I'm sort of reading the DRV consensus as that they decided to allow you the chance to work on it in your userspace, not to rewrite and then resubmit it to the mainspace without more sourcing. If I'm mistaken in that then the admin that closed the DRV (Spartaz) can move this back to the mainspace, but my personal preference would be that this goes through more editing and sourcing first, then goes through AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot comprehend how a DRV closed as recreation permitted can possibly be interpreted to mean work on this in draft space and resubmit. If you are unhappy with the article you need to get the sourced discussed at AFD. NYT obit will be a strong indicator of notability to overcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)