Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force/Archive 2009-2016

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject status

Is this WikiProject still alive? I'm wondering if there is still activity here because I have some questions regarding shoot boxing and talk pages. Jfgslo (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that only two out of four participants are still active here. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Well, seeing how long it took to receive an answer, I guess the project is still inactive. Do you know who are the editors that are still active? Or, do you think it would be okay to address some issues here? I would like to address some issues regarding reliable sources, female kickboxing, table record format and other small issues. I was going to ask something about shoot boxing but, after these months, I forgot what was the issue. I just remember that it was something related to Rena Kubota. Jfgslo (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm a member of WP Boxing and I was just passing by this page. The two users are Marty Rockatansky and Yappakoredesho. It seems that the project is still inactive. You can send them a message and ask for their opinions regarding the status of this project. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for updating the guidelines

I was able to contact one of the last active members of this project, Marty Rockatansky, and by his suggestion, I will start the discussion for updating the guidelines.

1. We should make clear which is the parent project of this WikiProject Kickboxing, WikiProject Sports or WikiProject Martial arts. It may seem trivial, but, when looking for information regarding the status of this project, I was informed at WikiProject Martial arts that the parent of Kickboxing is WikiProject Sports, which was a surprise to me since the opening banner says that the parent is WikiProject Martial arts.
2. On other more important issues, the more notorious one for me is the lack of uniformity in the record table formats in all biographical articles. As far as I have seen, no article is using the format established in the current guidelines. I believe we should decide a new format and we should specify that MMA and boxing records should be in a different section.
3. The section structure for articles about kickboxers should be more specific and should be modified in its format to emulate the structure of the featured sport-related biographical articles, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Thierry Henry, Alain Prost, Donald Bradman and Jackie Robinson. I'm sure that Ernesto Hoost or Peter Aerts could get closer to featured article status with a new structure.
4. This is perhaps the most important issue. Almost all kickboxing articles lack references. This of course has an impact in the overall quality of them. Part of the problem is that finding reliable sources for kickboxing is not as easy as other sports since it is not yet well known in English-speaking countries. But I know there are several reliable sources in Japanese that are relatively easy to find and I believe this can also happen with Dutch sources. To address this issue I suggest the creation of a reference library subsection like other Wikiprojects have. In this subsection we could add the sources that we know can help with providing reliable references, and we could mention books, magazines, documentaries or websites. This should help editors to reference the kickboxing articles and this in turn will help to improve the quality of them.
5. People do not know the organizations related to kickboxing and they even know less about female kickboxing. I think it would help if could add in the guidelines which are the recognized kickboxing related organizations.

These are some of the issues that I wanted to address when updating the guideline. There were others, but, at the moment, these are the ones that should be addressed first. If there is another issue that you think that should also be addressed, please, let me know. Jfgslo (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Updating fighter records

Since Jfgslo and Marty have got the ball rolling I would suggest that when updating fighters records after a weekends result we actually add an edit note saying what their (the fighter) record has been changed to as we have a problem of people adding results and sometimes I am not sure if the whole page has been updated leading to potentially inaccurate fight records. This means I have to keep a spreadsheet record of all the major fighters which is a bit of a (necessary) pain. Take a look at the Revision history of Marco Piqué on 2nd May 2011. Let me know what you think all. jsmith006 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2011

i might be quilty of this myself in a past. theres always gonna be revisions from unregistered users but this makes it much more easier to back track. another thing i remember when we created the infobox, "the last updated date" line was added in a bottom for the same reason, it was suppose to automatically show the date the infobox was updated or the record changed. it doesnt work for some reason anymore, you gotta type the date in manually each time someone updates the record.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea and I like the format. This should be a part of the guidelines. But I would say that it would be equally important to reference the fight within the text. For example, if someone were to add a fight that did not happen, without references, how could we verify that it indeed occurred in the way that it is reported in a fighter's record? As far as I know, kickboxing doesn't have a fighters database like Sherdog, BoxRec or JudoInside, which means that, when adding fight results, we should try to provide references whenever possible, like this one or this one for Marco Piqué's fight to allow other editors to verify that the record is indeed correct. I know this won't be possible for all fights, but I think it would be helpful for the ones that have sources. Jfgslo (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to add a reference for the fights that took place on the events with wikipages, like all the K-1 or It's Showtime events. But definitely agree with the more obscure events, so my guideline would be, if a fight result gets added that took place on an event that does not have a separate article here in wiki it should be referenced. or a reference should be added if someone questions it.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

References within fight records for obscure events or for events we don't have (referenced) wikipedia pages for sounds like a good idea. This should provide an additional method of ensuring our pages are as water-tight as possible.jsmith006 (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2011

Amateur and exhibition matches in kickboxing record

Continuing with the discussion of the improvements to make to the guidelines, there is something that popped up that reminded me some of the issues with the current guidelines. As you may be aware, in MMA and boxing records the fights reported are only professional fights. In Rena Kubota's article, an editor recently modified her record to include some of her exhibition matches. As you know, the current guidelines is quite loose and it's not followed in general by editors of kickboxing articles. I would suggest to exclude any non-professional bout, be it amateur or exhibition, in the kickboxing records, as the record is designed to track a professional career and, while some exhibition matches may be notable, they still aren't competitive and should not be included at all. I would not be against adding descriptions of notable non-professional fights in the body text, but I am strongly against adding a record for amateur or exhibition matches. What do you think about amateur and exhibition bouts? Jfgslo (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should definately scrap exhibition bouts but some amateur bouts are very useful - for example world championships which although amateur are largely frequented by pros such as Andrei Kulebin. I would rather keep amateur records, providing we can provide sufficient references. I would also say this as I am creating a large number of pages related to W.A.K.O. world and European championships. I do think that there is the potential for amateur records to get abit messy however, so maybe in most cases we should leave out the record. However, there are also some fight records which combine professional and amateur records - see Vitaly Gurkov, Artem Levin - due to the only fighter records available being a combination of the two (taken from official/team websites) - we would need to ensure that any changes in guidelines do not therefore effect existing records or that the guidelines are too strict as this will put people off creating pages full stop. jsmith006 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2011

Amateur bouts can be kept, but they should not be in the same record table as professional bouts. There are some biographical articles that do make that distinction by having both amateur record and professional record tables. However, most editors don't add amateur fights, so the majority of articles in boxing, MMA and kickboxing omit amateur records. In fact, I would say that tracking amateur fights is harder because they regularly aren't as notable as professional fights. I believe that cases like Vitaly Gurkov and Artem Levin aren't common and it isn't too hard to separate their amateur fights from their professional fights anyway. It would be a simple matter of adding instructions that say "Do not include amateur bouts in a professional record. Instead, create a different record table for amateur matches. If you do not know if a fighter's bout is amateur or professional, include it in the professional record table until a reference shows that is not a professional fight". Jfgslo (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Where possible I have created two tables - the problem with Gurkov is that the site I got his overall fight record lists only his overall record (combining professional & amateur) and I'll be honest with you, I don't have a clue how many professional wins/draws/losses to amateur wins/draws/losses. I also believe that this may be the case with a number of fighters such as Mike Zambidis have records such as 144 wins which seems rather alot - tournaments can take up alot of fights (2/3 per night) but I'm guessing his earlier amateur record has also been included. Due to the scarcity of relible kickboxing sources on the net it isn't always possible to get a truly accurate record, particularly when older events are taken into account. jsmith006 (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011

You are right. I am aware of that situation. But the point is that, when that information is clearly differentiated, then they should not be put together. That is why I made the example with Rena Kubota, for whom all her fights, amateur, exhibition and professional, are perfectly recorded, so there is no room for confusion. Therefore, amateur and exhibition matches should not be included in her professional record. In fact, exhibition fights should not be included at all. The idea is that, when the guidelines are updated, specific instructions should be put to ensure that editors do not include a single record that includes amateur, exhibition and professional matches when they have the correct information available. For example, in Gurkov's case we know that he started his professional career in 2007, which means that previous fights in his record were amateur fights, so it is a simple matter of creating a different table for the pre-2007 matches even if we don't know if he had other amateur matches. Jfgslo (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Gurkov has had pro fights before 2007 (S-1 Kalingrad) and think his record in particular will be a nightmare (I don't think we'll see much more of this chap despite his impressive amateur record) - I'll separate his records but leave a note that combined record is (whatever his combined record is). Cheers. jsmith006 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2011

Draft for proposed update of WikiProject Kickboxing

I apologize for not having participated more in the discussion of the improvements to the guidelines. I decided that, instead of giving random ideas, it would be better to actually show what I have in mind for updating the guidelines. For that purpose, I have created an userspace draft of the new guidelines that I propose for the WikiProject Kickboxing. There are several points that I'd like to clarify about this draft, but I thing is best that the rest of editors interested on this WikiProject check them out and then explain those points as they get inquired.

As I once commented, I'm not an expert at kickboxing and my exposure is mostly limited to K-1, Shoot boxing and Japanese female kickboxing and even then very little, so expect to find some issues regarding that. Please take your time to check it and consider what should be added, removed, improved or modified. Jfgslo (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone else check the draft? Only Marty Rockatansky and jsmith006 have been kind enough to check it and I really would appreciate more opinions to improve it. I want this project to become active once again so that kickboxing articles are improved and safe from deletion and then focus on having at least two featured articles. At the moment we cannot even cite the project to asses notability. As I commented with Marty Rockatansky, contentious points will be left out of the update so feel free to criticize anything from the draft.

Marty Rockatansky, jsmith006, if no one else raises an issue, do you think it would be okay if I added the accepted part of the draft, which would be everything except for the whole Guidelines section, to the current project page or do you think it's best to add all the draft once all of it is accepted by consensus? Jfgslo (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Update of WikiProject Kickboxing

I have updated the WikiProject. As mentioned before, I left out all contentious points from the update. To avoid over-bloating the project page, the specific editing guidelines have been separated in different sub-sections. Please check it out and let me know what corrections or improvements should be made. Also, unless someone tells me otherwise, I will delete the draft within the next two days. Jfgslo (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

References within Fight Records

I have started to add the more obscure result references into fighter records - see Gregory Choplin's last fight. I think the best place for the ref is in the event box. Let me know what you all think. Cheers. jsmith006 (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2011

Task force instead of WikiProject

As I was getting prepared change the status of the project to active and to create a template for the talk pages of kickboxing articles, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to do so since this WikiProject is relatively small to handle all the bureaucratic overhead that comes with a fully active WikiProject. Because of this, I think it would be a good idea to discuss if WikiProject Kickboxing could work better as a task force of WP:SPORT instead of being an independent WikiProject, at least until more editors get interested in kickboxing.

The main disadvantage, of course, is that a task force would be dependent of the parent project, which is also the main advantage since the task force relies on the parent project to provide the procedural and technical infrastructure. For assessing articles, the core project's peer-review and assessment processes would be followed and that allows the task force to focus on writing and editing. Essentially a task force means fewer administrative hassles but less independence. I quote from WP:PROJGUIDE: "Many small, inactive WikiProjects were started before the task-force structure was formalized. Inactive groups with a limited topical scope should normally be turned into task forces of their "parent" WikiProject." I believe that this is the current case which was inactive for quite a long time.

I'm quite interested in this issue since I would like to see at least an A class article related to kickboxing and I believe that that can only happen with a fully active project. Please share your comments about the convenience of becoming a task force to focus more on writing and editing. Jfgslo (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to this idea and per WP:BOLD, I will propose to WP:WPMA to consider becoming the parent project and make this WikiProject into a task force as it was suggested to me here. At the moment, I'm quite busy with other matters, so I will probably do this next week, but please, if you disagree with transforming WikiProject Kickboxing into a task force of WP:WPMA, let me know. I truly believe that becoming a task force is the best path at this point in time. Jfgslo (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Kickboxing or Task Force

For those interested in reviving the WikiProject Kickboxing or starting a Task Force, I believe I can assist in regard to the sport's early history as well as with the records of many early champions. Throughout the 1980s, I administrated the STAR System World Kickboxing Ratings which were recognized as the official rankings source for the WKA and KICK, two of the three major sanctioning bodies of the day, and which were carried in some 15 martial arts magazines across the world. As such, I had direct access to many official event scorecards and sanctioning documents, as well as to the fighters and officials. Yes, as we all know, records were poorly maintained during the 1970s startup era of the modern sport. Rules, sanctions, formats and even the sport's name changed almost weekly. However, while the STAR Ratings were still active, we made our best efforts to piece together the early records of at least the major champions using the cross-corroborated recollections of champions and officials, sanctioning body records, event posters, sports broadcasts and published coverages.

Having recently read through several Wikipedia entries on the subject, I would like to identify a frequent misconception: The distinction between kickboxing and muay Thai in the minds of the sport's original leaders was that kickboxing prohibited holding-and-striking whereas muay Thai encouraged holding-and-striking. Also, kickboxing scored rounds on the basis of the international standard for effectiveness, whereas muay Thai scored rounds based on classic muay Thai technique. That made them different sports. Full-contact karate and kickboxing, however, were the same sport. Throws and footsweeps, no throws and footsweeps, leg kicks, no leg kicks, knees and elbows, no knees and elbows, MKR, no MKR were elective rule distinctions of the sanctioning bodies ... usually based on the preferences of network television broadcasters, athletic commissions or the competitors themselves. The term "full-contact karate" was coined by Joe Lewis and was pushed by the PKA, the WKA and several other early sanctions because they wanted to maintain a marketing identification with traditional karate. However, by the mid-1980s, most everyone recognized that the term kickboxing had become dominant in the popular lexicon.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to participate actively in this WikiProject or Task Force, but I am willing to assist in whatever ways I can. I also offer our STAR System website which is maintained by myself with some assistance from martial arts reference author and STAR co-founder John Corcoran. I will be updating ring records data and add fresh interviews over the coming few weeks for Joe Lewis, Benny Urquidez and Don Wilson. I'll add many others down the road as my time allows.

Paul Maslak (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiKick

I'd like to invite all of you to contribute on WikiKick. We could use some more contributors and it's much less of a hassle. We don't care about linking every single detail or references. We just want reliable people making a good kickboxing database that can help further advance the sport that we love. I've seen that numerous kickboxing pages have been nominated for deletion and in the end, it looks like a losing battle. I want WikiKick to become something everyone can go to for kickboxing.

Just to give you some background information, I write for Liverkick.com and I'm the director for WikiKick.

Soy Chingon (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A little late in my answer, but I think that those articles that don't meet the WP:GNG, particularly events, can be moved there. I'm currently quite busy so I may not be able to collaborate much with creating articles, but perhaps someone else could move the recently deleted articles there. Jfgslo (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the plan for all the deleted articles?

As you are probably aware of, LibStar keeps deleting articles for kickboxing and MMA events. Obviously, he will not stop until everything is deleted. He will not except that these are notable events even though are held by K-1, It's Showtime, United Glory, PRIDE and the UFC! We cannot just let all of these events dissappear, if we do then we may as well stop trying to expand the kickboxing articles on here. -- WölffReik (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not delete articles, only admins can delete articles after WP:CONSENSUS is achieved. Consensus has clearly shown many are not notable and being held by K-1 etc does not mean notable. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki to WikiKick as an alternative to deletion

As some may know, an acceptable alternative to deletion is transwiking the content of an article which topic does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. As many have noticed, several kickboxing related articles have been deleted recently precisely because they do not meet the notability criteria. Right now, there is not an alternative Wiki to transwiki the information. Some months ago, editor Soy Chingon invited us to WikiKick, and I believe that it is an excellent alternative for transwiking articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are some concerns regarding the MediaWiki software used, but, for the most part, I believe that it is a good alternative, particularly since there aren't other Kickboxing wikis that I am aware of. One of the current problems that Wikikick faces is that it is a target for spam at the moment, so there needs to be some update in the software or the rules of that wiki. Still, considering how many articles have been deleted and how many more do not meet Wikipedia's standards, I would like to propose Wikikick as a transwiki option for AfD. What do other kickboxing opinions think? Also, if someone knows better alternatives or would like to offer other suggestions, please let us know. Jfgslo (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger idea Japanese kickboxing

I believe that Japanese kickboxing and American kickboxing should be merged into Kickboxing what are anyone else thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Visitacion

Hi there, Robert Visitacion has been listed as an unreferenced biography of a living person since December last year. His record seems notable, so I don't really want to nominate him for deletion, but I can't find anything in online reliable sources. Does anyone have any offline sources that might reference the article? Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What type of offline sources? When you search him (google) there are many articles of fights, TV guide which reference his fights. He fought in the 80s mainly with the PKA (Professional Karate Association) which televised sport karate for many years on ESPN, ABC, NBC and Showtime. The PKA brought names like Don Wilson, Joe Lewis and Bill Wallace into households and introduced the world to sport karate. There would be no UFC ect.. without PKA laying that foundation. The PKA has since dissolved so there is no online reference anymore. You can reference Joe Corley who ran the PKA organization. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.93.39 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Muay Thai professionals: future conventions for how to name articles about these professionals

The following is a link for discussion regarding the naming of articles about individual muay thai professionals, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Thailand#Muay_Thai_professionals:_How_to_name_the_articles_about_the_various_individuals. --Computadorcorriente (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike Bernardo's date of birth

Can anyone help to clarify Mike Bernardo's date of birth? (please comment at Talk:Mike Bernardo). Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability Criteria

Based on the deletion of many K-1 and It's Showtime event articles, it's clear that WP consensus doesn't agree with the notability criteria given on this article's page. For example, that says that all K-1 and It's Showtime events are presumed notable, but virtually all individual events that have been nominated have been deleted. AfD discussions have also shown that consensus doesn't agree with the idea that anyone who's ever competed at a K-1 or It's Showtime event is notable. These notability criteria apparently were created when there were 2 active participants, so I don't think modifying them is a huge deal and it seems reasonable to bring them into agreement with AfD consensus.

I would like to propose the following changes, which would keep kickboxing more in line with boxing. First, events can be considered notable when they decide the world championship of a premier kickboxing organization. Second, fighters are notable if they've fought for a world title of a major organization or if they've been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by an independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source. Since kickboxing falls under the martial arts project, kickboxers would also be considered notable if they meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE.

I will post a notice at WT:WPMA of this discussion. All opinions are welcome, as are any other suggestions. Papaursa (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with your fighter criteria changes, but I disagree with the events criteria. I agree that appearing on television these days isn't that notable, but martial arts (including kickboxing) is so fragmented that I don't think having a championship fight on a card should be grounds for automatic notability. Although WP:SPORTSEVENT is not very specific, I'd prefer to let that be the criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also say that Lumpinee and Rajadamnern champions are notable, in case there was any question. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering that some of the events given as examples of notable events have been removed or redirected to omnibus articles, I think it's clear that section needs revising. The same is true of fighters--many meeting the existing criteria have been deleted so a new set of guidelines is needed to meet with the current consensus on notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been 2 weeks and I was hoping to see more editors comment on this, but the existing criteria are definitely out of sync with AfD consensus. I am going to make a few minor modifications to the criteria and leave this discussion open. Papaursa (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Victory Martial Arts Chicago-First to bring Brazilian Jiu Jitsu in 1987

My name is Dion Riccardo. I am the owner of Victory Martial Arts. I hosted the first Gracie Jiu Jitsu Seminar in Chicago that kicked the Jiu Jitsu scene in Chicago.

We know operate 5 Martial Arts schools:

Victory Martial Arts Orland Park 15414 S 70th Ct Orland Park, IL 60462 (708) 275-4250

Victory Martial Arts Forest Park 1401 Circle Ave Forest Park, IL 60130 (708) 524-1553

Victory Martial Arts Chicago 329 W 18th St Chicago, IL 60616 (312) 909-7751

Victory MMA Gyms Chicago-Midway 5101 S Keeler Chicago, IL 60632 (773) 957-8040

Victory Martial Arts Naperville 1003 W Ogden Ave Naperville, IL 60565 (331) 330-7501 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dion Riccardo (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Is melchor menor notable

Is Melchor Menor notable He appeared in the movie here comes the boom, fight science and The ultimate fighter. Does that make Melchor notworthy enough and he fought in K1. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

http://msn.foxsports.com/watch/the-ultimate-fighter/story/muay-thai-legend-melchor-menor-break-a-baseball-bat-with-his-shin-101113

http://k-1sport.de/en/database/show_fighter.php?id=754

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2006/08/060814-fight-science_2.html

Fighter notability

There's been some discussion about kickboxer notability, so I'm starting this section. I'm posting the existing criteria, although I've added Glory to the list of major organizations.

A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've:

• fought for a world title of a major organization (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO, Glory, etc.),
• been ranked in the world top 10 by an independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source,
• been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion, or
• met the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE.

Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications.

For non-athletes, such as promoters or coaches, please check Wikipedia:Notability (people).

• Comment First of all, THIS SHOULD BE DONE CAREFULLY!
  

Let's make difference between kickboxing organisation an promotion. For example Glory is promotion, WAKO Pro is organisation (WAKO is amateur and WAKO Pro is professional).
My oppinion is that fighter is notable if WON world title of kickboxing organisation, and leading organisations should be specified (for example: WMC, ISKA, WAKO Pro, WKN, WKA, WBC Muaythai and non else).
Now just like in MMA, there should be list of top-tier (K-1, SUPERKOMBAT, It's Showtime, Glory, for lower divisions, for example -67kg, Krush etc) and second-tier ( FFC, RISE, Lion Fight, Enfusion Live etc), active and defunct promotions. So just like in MMA, fighter should be notable if fought for top tier promotion for 3, 4 or 5 times, or fought for a world title.

If you ask me it should be something like this:

   WON a world title of a major organization (WKA, WKN, WAKO Pro, WBC Myauthai, WMC.).
There are many non notable fighters that fought for organisation's title, so let's just name world champions ,
   fought at least 4 times for top-tier promotion (K-1, SUPERKOMBAT, It's Showtime, Glory), with more detailed table!
   been ranked in the world top 10 by an independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source,
   been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion, or
   met the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE.

We should also make top-tier promotions for women, I think that Enfusion Live should be one of it. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• In order to get an objective handle on what are the current notable kickboxing organizations, I used the same methodology as was used for MMA. I used the rankings at liverkick.com and looked at the organization where all of the top 10 fighters (regardless of weight class) fought their last fight. Only 2 organizations had more than 1 fighter--Glory and the WMC. The majority of fighters fought their last fight for Glory while 3 had last fought for a WMC world title. No other organizations would meet the criteria for top tier at MMA (of course the WMC is already in the current list). I agree that Glory should be added to the list of major organizations and that WAKO should be clarified to WAKO-Pro. I don't think the number of fights is a good criteria, especially when you consider that under some formats a fighter can get 3 fights in one night. I think that just allowing world champions is too restrictive. Except for the modifications to the list of major organizations, I don't see a good reason to change the existing criteria, but I'm open to suggestions. I would also recommend dealing with women's kickboxing in a separate discussion. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I will repeat, we must separate organisations (WKA, WKN, WAKO Pro, WBC Myauthai, WMC.) and promotions (K-1, SUPERKOMBAT, It's Showtime, Glory). Any promotion can put WAKO Pro belt on the line in their event so notable fighters would be: Kiril Ivanov, Dino Belosevic, Martin Horace... and Dustin Jacoby is not? If number of fights is not good criteria, ok number of events. So fighter has to fight at at least 4 events for top promotion.
    Idon't like criteria "where they fought last fight", they can make fight for other promotion tomorrow... Gerges, Adegbuyi and Londt are in top 10, with only Gerges fought for Glory. His last fights were for Glory, FFC, K-1 and Superkombat. Londt and Adegbuyi mostly fought for Superkombat and K-1. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right that organizations and promotions are different, but I don't think you'd say a K-1 champion wasn't notable because K-1 was a promotion.Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment Papaursa, in my opinion you must simply known sport. Because liverkick.com has a rankings system which will isolate all the other kickboxers. It's not like in the MMA. For example, you must beat a top 10 to be a top 10. Glory has exclusive contracts with its figthers and isn't an org. - like K-1 was that has re-united all the promotions, therefore SuperKombat, K-1, Final Fight Championship and others, are disadvantaged. And they will be in the future even more. Because Glory will not drop kickboxers of a high quality. In my opinion liverkick.com will change this system because it's taken from boxing and with the apparition of Glory (exclusive contracts) it isn't possible anymore. SuperKombat has 2 too (actually it would probably have more, Andrei Stoica has entered Glory as 4th but he's isolated by the liverkick.com system in the liverkick.com rankings; his brother Bogdan is probably even better; also Vladimir Mineev of Russia where he fights in local promotions, I personally really think he could beat Cavalari or McKinnon), Adegbuyi and Londt. Londt is still heavyweight champion there and but is also allowed to fight in any other promotions. Or K-1 with Buakaw and Cro Cop (Cro Cop has signed Glory recently though). WKA, WKN, WAKO Pro, WBC Myauthai, WMC, etc. are bodies, maybe we must separate them. Top-tiers are K-1, SUPERKOMBAT, It's Showtime, Glory, for lower divisions, for example -67kg, Krush etc) and second-tier (FFC, RISE, Lion Fight, Enfusion Live etc). I agree with Master Sun Tzu's lists. You can also take a look on the forums, Sherdog and not only, SuperKombat and K-1 are ranked right after Glory in kickboxing (not thai boxing). Then come FFC, Enfusion and others. Objectively, Glory is UFC, K-1 is Dream, Superkombat is a kind of Bellator, Final Fight Championship, Enfusion etc. a kind of BAMMAs. We must be fair, because kickboxing and thai boxing are big in Europe and Asia, like MMA in the US and Britain maybe. Osu, friends! Illovecoffee (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I used liverkick because it's cited frequently in kickboxing articles, but I think if you looked at any other major rankings you'd find the Glory has far more highly ranked fighters than any other promotion. That's probably because of their efforts to secure many of the fighters from K-1, but that doesn't change the bottom line--there's Glory and everyone else. I also don't seem a problem with rankings that require you to actually beat a higher ranked fighter in order to move up. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• My summary: Separate organisations from promotions.
  To name leading organisations and promotions. (active and defunct)
  Fighter is notable if: Won organisation's world title. For promotions simmilar like for MMA, if fought at 4 or 5 events doesn't matter, or just fought for highest title.
  Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I agree with you if you're saying counting the number of fights doesn't show notability, but fighting for (or winning) the highest title does. Do you want to eliminate the top 10 ranking criteria? Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you understand difference between organisation and promotion?
In MMA there are no notable organisations, only promotions (UFC, Bellator etc.). Notability is achieved if you fought at least 3 times for top-tier promotion.
That means that also in Kickboxing focus should also be on promotions (K-1, It's Showtime, Glory etc.) because this fighters (for example Michael Duut or Dustin Jacoby) are much more notable then 90% of WAKO Pro champions.
That's why notability should be achieved if fought at for example 5 events of a top tier promotion, rules simmilar to MMA.
As I mentioned, there are many non notable organisation's fighters (WAKO Pro, WKA, ISKA etc) world champions, and guys that fought for those titles are anonymous (for example Alan Kotsoev, Cederic Copra, Igor Mihaljevic etc) but they are notable according to this rules.
To fight for WKA Title you need money, and to fight for Glory title you must be one of the best in the world. Hope you understand me now. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do understand the difference between a promotion and an organization, but that's not what notability is about--it's about fighting at the highest level for the highest titles. If you're fighting for a world title, it's notable whether the belt issuer is a top organization or promotion. To fight for an organization's title you must have the approval of the organization for the match-up and find a promoter who believes enough in the match to put up the money to have it sanctioned. That's arguably more difficult to achieve than signing with a promotion and just letting them set up your fights. Kickboxing is similar to boxing in that you can get a lot of fights without meeting up with a top contender--that's why the number of fights isn't a good criteria. You're also ignoring the fact that kickboxing isn't just about K-1 style, it includes other styles like Muay Thai. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoter gives money to one fighter, for example Ivan Strugar, and brings bunch of amateurs to fight him.
OK, you are telling me that Michael Duut, guy who dropped Tyrone Spong in first round isn't notable and some Alan Kotsoev is. I give up.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think Master Sun Tzu's comment at the Dustin Jacoby AFD says it all--he has a 1-3 record and is scheduled for more fights and can be expected to continue to fight for Glory. That seems like the clearest argument yet as to why counting fights is a poor indicator of notability. I think that the notability standards should just be modified slighty. My suggested standards:

A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've:

• fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, etc.),
• been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source, or
• been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.

Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications.

I haven't seen any convincing arguments that the notability standards need a major revision or that these would eliminate any truly notable fighters. The last revision also didn't involve major changes.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We have got two sports, MMA and Kickboxing, two leading promotions UFC and Glory, with almost all the best fighters in the world. Number of fights is good indicator of notability for UFC and it is not for Glory. So Goran Reljic is notable with UFC score 1-3, and Jacoby is not notable with Glory record of 1-3, and will continue to fight there.
Interesting. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One difference is that Reljic got fired and Jacoby didn't. Also, don't see any UFC fighters fight 3 fights in one night.Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fabio Maldonado was also 1-3, now he is 3-3 so what? They needed a brasilian, Glory needs american.... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability is supposed to be independent of country.Mdtemp (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm OK with the IP's criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment OK, so we must declare exactly which organisations and promotions are notable. So (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It's Showtime, WKA, WKN, WBC Muaythai) would be my suggestion. If we put "etc." at the end that would mean that ALL organisations and promotions are notable! Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point about the etc. I think 3 of the ones you listed (ISKA, It's Showtime, and WKN) are questionable. I think ISKA was notable but now it's biggest event is just another stop on the NASKA tour. It's Showtime was always below K-1 until it's short lived joining with it. WKN is the one I feel strongest about--it's so non-notable that its article was removed from Wikipedia.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If ISKA was notable, we shall put untill which year, It's Showtime had champions in 61, 65, 70, 73, 77, 85, 95 and heavyweight, names like Danyo Ilunga, Artem Levin, Melvin Manhoef, Ghita, Souwer etc. That looks notable enough for me, K-1 had only 2 weight categories, I's Showtime did great job in other divisions. About WKN, well, Le Banner, Vladimir Mineev, Susperregui, Corbett, Nicolas Wamba, Wayne Parr, Valent... I think they do better job than WKA these days. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying these organizations didn't ever have any notable fighters, they did. The question is more about the notability of the organizations. If an organization can't show enough significance for a WP page, it's hard to see how it can be considered the cream of the crop. For simplicity, I'm willing to go with ISKA and It's Showtime, but not WKN. You're right, like the ISKA I think the WKA's best years were in the past.Mdtemp (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not a person who would say is WKN notable or not, just gave opinion, but I am sure for I's Showtime, also because they were leading promotion after k-1 broke, and they had all the best heawyweights. If WKA or ISKA is not notable now, just put notable till that and that year. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Even though the WKN article was removed for lack of notability, I'm inclined to include it simply because when I look at its home page I see champions from all over the world. I see a similar thing when I look at the ISKA site. However, when I look at the WKA page I find a claim that they'll be having lots of Pro title fights this year, but no list of pro champions. Their focus appears to be on their annual amateur championships. They also claim to have invented kickboxing in the 1990s, although it clearly existed before that. My vote would be to include the WKN instead of the WKA, which lacks a good track record for professional kickboxing. I'm also OK with including It's Showtime--apparently I'm feeling very inclusionist right now. Papaursa (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well there are rules for organisation's notability, has nothing to do with champions as I see... idn.... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Papaursa was trying to apply a common sense test. Don't know that I agree concerning the WKN, but I think this discussion has gone on long enough because things look pretty settled. I do agree with what he said about the WKA and I'll go along with It's Showtime. Master Sun Tzu, I'll give you the final word on the WKN--include or not? After that call, I think the standards can be updated.Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Alongside WMC, WKN is doing the best job, so yes I considere WKN notable. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to update the notability criteria now based on this discussion. Thanks to everyone for their input.Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I know this is late but I'd like to include the PKA. I meant to mention this earlier, but it slipped my mind. In the 70s and 80s it was the premier kickboxing organization. It still exists, but it's not the same. It's now a promotion instead of an organization (see, I do know the difference) and it doesn't have the same level of fighters. I'd say it was top tier through 1986 when ownership disagreements caused a split. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Let's see if anyone else comments.Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm going to add the PKA through 1986 as top tier.Mdtemp (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kickboxing title

What is word order in a kickboxing title:
ex. WAKO Pro K-1 Rules World Welterweight Champion +66.8 kg or
WAKO Pro World K-1 Rules Welterweight Champion +66.8 kg or
WAKO Pro K-1 Rules Welterweight World Champion +66.8 kg??? Master Sun Tzu (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Justine Kish a notable fighter?

Justine Kish is a World Muaythai Council champion also so should she get her own article[1]. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship

Hello. I ask the permission to add this promotion on the top promotions list. Because: How would you rank the current organisations? 5 users, 5 time-top 3 promotions SUPERKOMBAT. Then on the bigger forum Sherdog, SK is always mentioned as being major. In the European media the same, then the bodies WAKO, WKA, WKN, etc. call it the same. To me, SUPERKOMBAT is the new It's Showtime. I personally think 1. GLORY 2. SUPERKOMBAT 3. K-1 4. Legend. The last two aren't hosting events consistently. K-1 has 3 World Granx Prix events in 2014, Legend has 2 majors, SK has 6 WGPs. It was pretty the same thing in 2013 regarding these 3. It doesn't matter anyway if SUPERKOMBAT is #2 or #4, it's a top tier (all three are comparable with MMA's Bellator). Majjorca (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Also, I think that Final Fight Championship, Enfusion, Tatneft, Yokkao, Lion Fight etc are 2nd tier promotions and should be all allowed because they are enough solid, having consistent champions that also can be on Wikipedia. Majjorca (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not against further discussion but the ranking of fighters and by extension which promotions should be considered when determining notability was discussed at length just recently (see Fighter notability above). I think they got it right then and don't see any reason to change. Number of events are not important, the quality of fighters is.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Well, you completely ignored SUPERKOMBAT and Legend, or at least the first one. Sources: Superkombat: La formula 1 della Kickboxing sbarca a Monza (WKA president), K-1, SuperKombat and WAKO reach worldwide cooperation agreement (WAKO) and WKN promoting world titles with Local Kombat (WKN of course). SUPERKOMBAT is major. Please be fair people and fans of fighting! Moisés Baute is notable, he won a major SK event, a World Grand Prix. They only have 6 WGPs annually, the rest are smaller events called New Heroes. It's Showtime IS THERE, SUPERKOMBAT also should be. Majjorca (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're new to Wikipedia, but you need to understand that decisions are based on consensus. The long discussion earlier this year about the notability of organizations is a good example. Even if SuperKombat was listed, Baute wouldn't be notable from winning an event--only by fighting for the world title. Show he meets WP:KICK and his article will remain on WP. Starting your editing by claiming discrimination by other editors is not a good way to begin. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment But these World Grand Prix tournaments are exactly like those from K-1 and Glory. Tournament Championships are awarded, though the Championships are different. In Glory we had this before, Glory 11: Chicago. I understand now that SUPERKOMBAT wasn't listed because you had ETC. But ‎PRehse wasn't fair to say that SK isn't top tier, because it is the new It's Showtime. I believe major tournaments should also be included (!). After all because of the system, K-1 and SUPERKOMBAT can have better WGP champions than the normal champions. Remember, Badr Hari won the Heavyweight Championship in K-1 but he never won a TOURNAMENT CHAMPIONSHIP! Winning the World Grand Prix or even some of the WGP events were more important or at least the same in the last case. I'm just saying, Baute didn't win a minor tournament. For SK WGP you need to earn qualification, from SK New Heroes or qualification bouts at other events. Baute needed to face Kemayo who injured and was replaced by Bugaenko, so he got automatically a spot. Majjorca (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the notability criteria are about world championships not lesser tournaments. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Baute won the World Grand Prix Tournament Championship. It's World Tournament Championship. Like in K-1 (and Glory). Winning a WGP is sometimes more important than winning a world title. And harder. For instance, Verhoeven had to defeat Saki, Ghita and Silva instead of a single opponent. Cro Cop might get a chance at the championship now, how is that more notable than winning a WGP? Majjorca (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: bodies are not promotions

You are also confusing the organisations with the bodies. Organisations don't exist anymore. K-1 was an organisation, now it's a promotion. They call themselves "promotion" on the official site. An organisation was resembling all the fighters' promotions.

WKA, WKN, WAKO, ISKA, etc. are bodies. They can be considered notable indeed, but in the bodies section. We should separate the promotions. For instance, SUPERKOMBAT is investing 350-450k euros euros each normal WGP, +600k euros every final event (two pear year, the finals). WKA, WKN, WAKO and ISKA, don't do that. Some have amateur championships like WAKO for very small prizes or put titles on the line in promotions, including Local Kombat and SUPERKOMBAT in the past but not anymore or at smaller promotions events.

The user Master Sun Tzu has also told you this. And he named the 4 top-tier promotions: K-1, SUPERKOMBAT, It's Showtime, Glory, I would also include Legend. Then WMC, ISKA, WAKO Pro, WKN, WKA, WBC Muaythai bodies. WKN from my point of view deserves notability.

Majjorca (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC) As second active world's promotion I would also put SUPERKOMBAT's world champions as notable fighters. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Master Sun TzuYou excluded them from your February list which I thought was pretty good. Has something changed to make them Top-tier and, importantly from what point? I am not against promotion if the reasoning is sound but especially in this case I would like to have a from xxxx' date set. I look forward to a few more opinions before I come down on one side or the other.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. SuperKombat is currently the second world's promotion. Many people are comparing it with Bellator MMA. SuperKombat champions are notable. Can we all agree, PRehse and Papaursa? Please add this. Illovecoffee (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IllovecoffeeSee my comment above. I think a case has to be made. I hope Papaursa chimes in he tends to be quite logical about these issues.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a bit confused. The above comments seem to make distinctions between 3 things--bodies, organizations, and promotions. I understand the difference between promotions and organizations (see the earlier discussion on notability), but I don't see where "bodies" come in. I also have concerns about the fact that virtually none of SuperKombat's champions are even ranked in liverkick.com's top 10. Another distinction is that SuperKombat doesn't have their world championship at stake very often. For example, it looks like the last heavyweight division title fight was in 2012. What are these tournaments for if they don't actually decide who the champions are? In a nutshell, I'm not inherently opposed to SuperKombat, but it doesn't look like they have the top level fighters. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

REALLY? Actually Andrei Stoica is in the top 10 Liverkick. Then Benjamin Adegbuyi a WGP champion in SUPERKOMBAT is ranked 5th in the heavyweight division. Errol Zimmerman a former SUPERKOMBAT Fight Club winner is 3rd. Rico Verhoeven (#1), Anderson Silva (#4), Hesdy Gerges (#7), Ben Edwards (#9) and Zabit Samedov (#10) also fought in the promotion. Then Alex Pereira the 6th middleweight in the world, and Albert Kraus and Mike Zambidis who also were in top 10 when they were fighting there. Or Ismael Londt (2012 K-1 WGP runner), Pavel Zhuravlev (Legend winner) and Sergei Lascenko are entirely SK products and were in the top 10 of the Liverkick rankings at some moment. The Liverkick top is currently isolating the other promotions because for being ranked top 10 you need to beat the man. A top 10 fighter, additionally you must link awesome results. Some are in Glory and K-1 but are SUPERKOMBAT products. Some SKs that went to Glory were higher ranked there (in the Glory rankings) than in the Liverkick rankings. Look at GLORY, they also didn't have world championships at stake very often. If you talk about organisations and promotions, find out that K-1 isn't anymore an organisation, the same Glory doesn't act like that. So if Glory isn't an organisation then seriously, these bodies WKN, ISKA, whatever are ok to be notable, but it's more notable to be a SUPERKOMBAT champion. SK is the second active promotion in the world, K-1 only has the middleweight tournament it sucks in rest... SUPERKOMBAT doesn't even need to have world championships at stake all the time, because they have the WGP tournaments, in my opinion any World Grand Prix winner in SK and any champion is notable, it's a discrimination. I just brought arguments, notable fighters who fought in the promotion, some top kickboxers and explanation regarding the titles (WGP tournaments, some championships but to be honest they kept adding the belts on the card for a while). In K-1 and SUPERKOMBAT it's more important to win the World Grand Prixs instead of the championships, though the championships are also notable. K-1 also barely has current top 10 fighters in the rankings. If they have with 1-2 more than SK it's because K-1 is still the best kickboxing brand in the world. But it doesn't mean K-1 isn't notable promotion, the same SUPERKOMBAT. For me, 1. GLORY 2. SUPERKOMBAT 3. K-1. All should be notable, please make justice. Master Sun Tzu is linked to the FFC but was fair to say this. Objectively, any SUPERKOMBAT champion and WGP tournament winner is notable. I CAN ALSO CITE FROM THE EUROPEAN MEDIA, I CAN PROVE THAT THEY WRITE ABOUT AT LEAST 3 TIMES MORE ABOUT SUPERKOMBAT THAN K-1. Press in Great Britain, Germany, Holland, Italy, France, Spain, Greece, Russia, Belarus, Croatia, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Bosnia, Serbia, Estonia, Hungary, etc. Majjorca (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that fighters that are now considered notable once fought for SuperKombat doesn't matter, the point is that Andrei Stoica (#10 at light heavyweight) is the only current SuperKombat ranked fighter. SuperKombat was, not that long ago, considered so minor that its WP article was deleted multiple times. It's only reasonable that to become a ranked fighter you need to beat a ranked fighter at some point, so that's not a valid excuse for the lack of SuperKombat ranked fighters. I agree K-1 is nowhere near where it once was. Even if consensus were to agree to add SuperKombat to the list in WP:KICK, there's no reason to consider anything but world title fights as validating notability (the same as with all the other organizations). After all, if you don't consider their world title to be their most important title, why should others give weight to any of their titles? Papaursa (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Higo

Is Lisa Higo is she a notable kickboxer? [2]. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence to show she passes WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope this is the right forum this time

Earlier I apparently asked in the wrong forum so hopefully this time I got it right. Jorina Baars apparently was an ISKA champion I dunno if that makes her notable I thought I better ask than risk being deleted. [3] Dwanyewest (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:KICK for people notability. An ISKA champion would be notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lina Akhtar Lansberg was also a 2007 – Thailand, Bangla Boxing Stadium Champion I didn't know if that is considered notable? [4]. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That alone would not be sufficient to show notability and I don't see anything in her record to show she meets WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Was Leon Walters a K-1 competitor?

Leon Walters I understand that Leon may be notable for winning in multiple medals in the Karate World Championships but was he ever a K-1 Kickboxer as I can't seem to find any reliable evidence he fought in a K-1 or any noteworthy kick boxing competition. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I searched and found he did compete for K-1. However, he does not appear to be a notable kickboxer so you'll need to show he was a notable karateka.Mdtemp (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Raul Cătinaș for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raul Cătinaș is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raul Cătinaș until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Posting this here because Cătinaș is a former SuperKombat champion, but there seems to be unfinished discussion here about whether or not that promotion satisfies the criteria for notability. If you would like to comment on the article, please see the discussion linked above. Ivanvector (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SUPERKOMBAT is currently not top tier promotion, even if it was Catinas only won qualifying tournament, not highest title, so he is not notable. End of story. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time this year SuperKombat's notability has been discussed. It's not been considered top tier, and even if it was, the fighters we've discussed haven't fought for its world title.Mdtemp (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken about Cătinaș' contending for the championship, which is moot anyway since SK is not considered top-tier. Thanks for taking the time to comment; comments about the deletion are best placed at the deletion forum though. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I made this comment at the AFD discussion yesterday. I just thought it was worth mentioning at this forum because we keep seeing SPAs insisting that SK competitors should be considered notable and this year's earlier discussions are posted earlier on this page. I would also like to say that I have nothing to do with PRehse's postings.Mdtemp (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that now, thanks. I was curious because the most recent discussion didn't seem to me to have reached a conclusion, so I was asking for a second look at the AfD. I'm not asking for SK's notability to be reconsidered now, frankly this isn't my area of expertise and I'm not really interested. You guys are the experts here. Ivanvector (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean up table using AWB

What are they doing with this tables, this is certenly not how they should look like. Example Sergej Maslobojev. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are these guys notable?

Ronnie Green, Dev Barret, Anne Quinlan, Lisa Howarth are these two kickboxers notable as they were trained by Master Toddy. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Merely being trained by Master Toddy is not enough to grant notability and the WKA is not one of the organizations whose titles grant automatic notability--especially since most WKA titles, unless otherwise specified, are usually for amateurs. Dwayne, why do you ask about notability and create the articles an hour later--before anyone can comment on the fighters' notability? Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

World Kickboxing Association

Just like PKA is notable through 1986 I think World Kickboxing Association should be notable until some year, for example 2008 or 2010. Please think about that Master Sun Tzu (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree although I have no strong opinion when that date should be. Either would work.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the old WKA to the notable list. Although they sanction pro fights they don't even maintain a list of their current pro champions on their website--just amateurs. I would suggest 1993 as the last date. I arrived at that by looking at the fighters mentioned in the WKA article and 1993 was the latest date any of them won WKA titles, plus the organization changed hands the following year. All that seems to make a reasonably clear line of demarcation. Papaursa (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Masaaki Satake was a champion in 1994, Sam Greco in 1994, Stan Longinidis in 1997, Jörgen Kruth in 1998, Andy Hug untill 2000, Azem Maksutaj untill 2002, Yoshihiro Sato in 2003, Mike Bernardo in 2004, Emil Zoraj in 2006, Yohan Lidon 2008, Filip Verlinden in 2009, Adnan Redžović 2010, Batu Khasikov 2010, Besim Kabashi untill 2011, Stefan Leko 2012, Priest West 2012, Vladimir Mineev 2012, Fadi Merza 2013, Stéphane Susperregui 2013, John Wayne Parr 2013...
I wouldn't agree with 1993... Also I must say that rules are changed this year, some articles are certenly made because of WKA notability, 1993 is far away... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This may seem a silly way of asking but I notice the WKN which is in the notability list has no wikipedia article yet WKA does. I wonder if that may actually be a typo and WKA has been there all along.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In an earlier notability discussion I said the WKN was not notable, but it was included by divided consensus. I also said the WKA's best days were behind it. As I look at the fighters I'm aware of (like Parr and Leko) their WKA titles came when they were past their prime, which argues that the WKA is not on the same level. I think Hug's title makes 2000 a reasonable cut-off date.Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WKN has 2 current champions from Liverkick's top 10 list + JLB, Glory's #10 contender... The others don't have much better situation.
We must agree that best kickboxer in the world is Glory's champion, and goal of every top kickboxer is to become one, not to be WAKO Pro or ISKA's champion... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

While I would agree that ISKA and WKN may well be lesser titles, I believe we've gotten off topic--which was about WKA notability and deciding upon a date when it was notable. Based on some of the previous posts I would be willing to say WKA professional titles indicate notability through 2000. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Since it was posted 10 days ago, no one has objected to using 2000 as the ending point of the WKA's status as a major professional kickboxing organization so I will make add it to the list at WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Were these guys legit K-1 fighters?

Was Dricus du Plessis and Nkazimulo Zulu ever legitimate K-1 fighters [5] [6] [7] [8]. I promise to avoid controversy I won't make anything unless it definitely notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

These guys fought for the new K-1, not the notable older version, so I would say they're not notable unless there is something to show they meet WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Henry Fadipe was he an ISKA pro?

Was Henry Fadipe an ISKA pro? [9] [10] Dwanyewest (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find him listed at the ISKA website as a champion of any kind. I'm also confused because one link says he fought Christian Itchim for the welterweight championship but the ISKA website defines welterweight as up to 147 pounds, which is much lighter than his listed fighting weight at Sherdog of 170 pounds. I found a promotional release for a fight card that said he was scheduled to fight Itchim for an ISKA title at 81.4 kg which would be an ISKA light heavyweight. I didn't find anything I think is reliable and consistent enough to show he meets WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

List of K-1 events

We know what is K-1 etc. Can we redict all of their event in articles like "2005 in K-1", just like 2014 in SUPERKOMBAT. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:13, 12 Decembre 2014 (UTC)

You mean convert the one long list into year articles? That would be a huge chunk of work but I see no reason why not. It would be in line with as you say SUPERKOMBAT not to mention the main MMA promotions. We already have 2012 in K-1 Events. I would like to see the long list trimmed into redirects as the years get generated with the eventual deletion of the list.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of Keeping the Open Tasks

I don't understand the purpose and am amazed by the size. Is it a list of any and every fighter without an article? Is it useful to keep. My gut says delete all and start again - adding in names that would meet the notability criteria but don't have articles yet.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, lots of names there don't meet notability. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see it was a good idea at the time - but it has grown into a monster. I will wait a bit just in case their are some other opinions but I predict a house clean.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. It really was getting hopelessly irrelevant.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

EBU female

Is a female boxer notable if fought for EBU female world title? Master Sun Tzu (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NBOX #2 does not distinguish between male and female. Based on that I would think so.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Tasks

Perhaps we should write near every kickboxer why is he notable (with a reference), so there are no doubts. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case why not just create the article stub. The biggest difficulty is finding a reference that establishes notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if he fougt for WAKO Pro title, we add report from that event, if he was ranked in top 10 we put that article?
For example *Mehmet Ozer - Fought for WAKO Pro world title Reference Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, it is important to note why is kickboxer important, I listed Khalid Bourdif as one of them, most people wouldn't know that he was ranked in top 10 by liverkick. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No argument. It would make it easier for people to choose which open task to take on. Don't think you need to have a reference for that but that would't hurt either. I put in a polite request on the project paqe.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So? May I do it? Master Sun Tzu (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead - you don't really need my or anyone else's permission for that sort of thing.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Master Sun Tzu I noticed a number of fighters from the new list have had articles created. Should we leave them on the list (at least for a bit) or remove as created. I kind of think they should remain for about a month but not permanently.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Rehse All the same for me. It can be deleted already... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

World Kickboxing Network

I think we should declare from which age WKN champions are notable. I think it should be 2009 or 2010. They had lots of notable champions untill 2009 (Jerome Le Banner in 1998, Dmitry Valent, Nathan Corbett, John Wayne Parr, Xhavit Bajrami, Vladimir Mineev, Bruce Codron, Gabriel Varga etc. In 2009 they promoted series of Ergen Ring Ateşi events, broadcasted on FOX TV along other events on FOX, also official partners of Fightmag. My oppinion is from 2009. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand - notable from 2009 or notable to 2009.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

From. They are one of the best since 2009, not before. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what I thought you said - just checking. If they had a number of notable champions up to that point I personally would not be so concerned with a hard number but wont argue against it. If a date is chosen I would support 2009.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is important to choose a year, like for WKA, As I can see it is 2009, but I would like to hear other oppinions also. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to defer to Master Sun Tzu on this and say from 2009. I do think it's important that an article for the WKN be created, and be capable of surviving an AfD discussion, because it doesn't seem to make sense to claim an organization is among the planet's most important kickboxing organizations and can confer notability when it hasn't been shown to be notable in itself. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oktagon

Can I have an opinion on this organization. Are the claims realistic. Are they supported.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Are they notable?

Do you think Denise Kielholtz and Hatice Ozyurt are notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Alka Matewa

I have had a request to restore this article that was deleted after an AfD discussion (pinging nominator User:PRehse), based on his fighting for an ISKA World Title (source provided by requestor: [11]), In the absence of any evidence of other coverage in reliable sources, could you advise whether fighting for this title would be enough for him to be considered likely to be notable? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think so Master Sun Tzu is usually right in any case with respect to notability and I am sure he will find further references. ISKA World title fight definately meets WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michig (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Glory Kickboxers or a Category?

I believe that Category:Glory kickboxers is better than a list. The author of the list has been blocked, so he isn't able to edit the list.Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That explains a list with only two entries (I will ask that it be deleted on the banned user ground). Wikipedia does allow both Lists and Categories on the same subject - I think its redundant but some find it useful.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think category would be better rather than having a long unweidly list of fighters. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree - let me set up the Category but I will need help populating it.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: Done - could do with a bit help populating it (so far the Glory champions have been added). I also created a Kickboxers by organization category for future tree expansion.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)