Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOTC Legacy

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. If anyone wants the text to make a list article, just let me know. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOTC Legacy

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

This article is merely a reporting of results at an MMA event. WP:N clearly states that "routine news coverage such as ... sports coverage ... is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." There is nothing about this event that passes WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons in nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur. Janggeom (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. This is the same exact discussion as had been previously held on KOTC events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOTC_Vengence

I don't want to get into all of that again (I spent enough time in the previous discussions, but if a list of past KOTC events is appropriate....doesn't it make sense that someone should be able to find out the results of those events? I thought that is what this website was all about. GUHoyas95 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:N is pretty clear. As for getting results, I'd assume the KOTC home page would have them. If the organization doesn't list them, they sure can't be notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. If they do list them, then there's no need to be on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's place to be a web host. A list of the events may be appropriate under the KOTC entry, but giving every result is not. Papaursa (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their website absolutely lists results....but I guess I just disagree that if information is available elsewhere it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Again, you and I had this same argument months ago at which time I stated that I would continue to work on the KOTC pages and give results. I enjoy it and think it is worthwhile. I will say the same thing now as I did then, if I am allowed to continue I will, if not I won't. GUHoyas95 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at will - GUHoyas95, see this page - the "Other stuff exists" argument for opposing an AfD doesn't bode well. Just because one thing is here, another similar thing may be not worthy of inclusion. As it is, I agree completely with Papaursa, if the website for the KOTC don't list the results, why should we? Get the incinerator out, I smell an article burning coming on :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that just because something is listed elsewhere doesn't mean it can't be on Wikipedia. However, I also agree that WP:N is clear and that this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. I suppose we could go back and revisit the KOTC Vengeance article. Astudent0 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Enjoy your little club. GUHoyas95 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (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.