Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Critical Countdown 2004

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 keep. v/r - T P 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Critical Countdown 2004

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

also nominating Pride Critical Countdown 2005. neither event gets any real third party coverage. gnews shows mainly MMA which is not third party. [1] and [2]. google search shows almost all fighting sources or event listings. simply having notable fighters is not a reason alone for keep or strong keep. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Now you are trying to delete PRIDE events – this is getting ludicrous. I feel that I don’t really need to justify any defence this is PRIDE we’re talking about – the top organization (ever) in MMA with notable fighters such as Ricardo Arona, Quinton Jackson, Mark Hunt, Sergei Kharitonov, Semmy Schilt, Heath Herring, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Fedor Emelianenko and Kevin Randleman. The event was also part of the 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Tournament. If this page gets deleted all MMA and kickboxing pages have no defence against this onslaught - do you really think you are improving wikipedia? What next Libstar – UFC events? Also please stop trying to tell people that they can’t use keep or strong keep, you are not in charge of wikipedia however much you would like to think. jsmith006 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011

again the criteria here is WP:GNG, not very notable fighters. my favourite National Rugby League team played another team last weekend. the game was full of notable players, in fact it was reported in the media. yet there is no need to create a WP article out of it.LibStar (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar do you have any idea whats you doing right now? You are full on to discrediting yourself so bad its not even funny.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hardly. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Libstar - Events in MMA/kickboxing tend to be different from team sports in that individual promotions hold far less shows per year than Australian Rugby League teams play games (24 in a regular season I believe) – something that PRIDE certainly did not do. Also the PRIDE event you have nominated is like the knockout stages of the UEFA Champions League – why don’t you go over to the football pages and start nominating them for deletion as well. While Rugby League teams have a history stretching back sometimes for decades, the emphasis on league games (unless derbies or relegation/promotion) is not generally as important as individual mma and kickboxing events in my opinion. I believe that events in MMA and kickboxing by important promotions such as PRIDE are shaped by their events and with less media coverage than Rugby League or Aussie Rules football, it is the only way really on wikipedia to gauge how important an event or promotion is – of course unless you think that mma or kickboxing has no place on wikipedia. As for you discrediting yourself even your fellow deletionists are starting to find your nominations and behaviour slightly ridiculous. You know the world isn't going to implode because you haven't nominated a mma or kickboxing page in the last couple of hours. jsmith006 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011

nor is your world going to implode if some of these kickboxing articles get deleted. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have like a method how you pick those articles or its just whatever you stumble upon, seems like you having some sic kinda satisfaction about all this.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To Libstar) My world will remain intact but large swaths of the martial arts section of wikipedia are going to be turned into red links by your actions. How much effort do you think it takes to build something and how much effort do you think it takes to tear something down? You do actually realize you would get a far more positive response from people if you actually tried to be helpful but you are very rigid in your actions and see yourself as a Paladin of wikipedia who is totally in the right because you can quote WP like some sort of maniac lawyer. All you’re doing is turning off any potential new editors and scaring off existing ones who don’t want to waste time arguing with you. jsmith006 (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2011

if you're trying to discourage me, why not properly source these articles in the first place instead of endlessly coming up with arguments here and WP:ADHOM attacks like "manic lawyer"? LibStar (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can’t you start speaking like a normal person – I was almost starting to warm to you with your ‘Rugby League’ example. Your saying I’m coming up with endless efforts to discourage you but I’m saying you are coming up with endless nominations that seem to be aimed at notable organizations (PRIDE, SuperLeague, SuperKombat, United Glory) most of which have a variety of sources but because they are not from the New York Times or The Australian then you are refusing to even acknowledge them. You also seem to be bringing in new arguments each time we come close to satisfy an existing one. First we had no Gnews hits and then when something had Gnews hits it was not notable and there were no independent 3rd party sources, then when these were found there weren’t enough sources, then the sources weren't good enough sources, then it was the promotion is notable but the events aren’t and so and so forth. In terms of discouraging you that will never work but I hope other people will realise just how crazy it is to delete huge areas of Wikipedia just because Mr Libstar doesn’t think mma and kickboxing are relevant. Btw you may think 'Maniac Lawyer' is an attack but I feel that your delibrate targeting of these pages is far more aggressive and hurtful to the editors who have put in so much hard work. You can call me any names you feel like just leave these pages alone. jsmith006 (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2011

WP:OWN if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even my page and I don't work on MMA articles (I added or updated fight box for Cro-Cop but that was for kickboxing). I just strongly disagree with most of your nominations - not all I haven't defended several pages which have no sources or do not have any notable fighters.jsmith006 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2011

Keep The article has no independent sources and it needs those to avoid removal. However, my search found so many sources I'm sure that some good ones can be added to the article. I'm willing to give the MMA editors a chance to improve this article. Astudent0 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of indepth third party coverage. see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep A PRIDE event doesn't get deleted. Since it appears that sources are the issue, then we get it sourced, which ,as said above, isn't hard to do if you know where to look. Instead of nominating to delete, improve the article. Jahahn (gab) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of indepth third party coverage. see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The article remains unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just referenced it and cleaned it up. Will shortly do the same for the 2005 article as well. Jahahn (gab) 22:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are now referenced, and thus justifiable. Jahahn (gab) 23:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you'll need evidence of wider third party coverage than sherdog.com has any mainstream news service covered this event? LibStar (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog is the CNN of MMA. It is a great MMA news service, with reporters at every major event and several minor ones. They are affiliated with ESPN and provide extensive, reliable coverage for their website [3]. (Notice the Sherdog links at the right hand side of the page towards the bottom.) If the news sites you are looking for are places like CNN and MSNBC, you are mistaken. Also, since I see that you are not a member of, or perhaps not even aware of, the Mixed Martial Arts WikiProject, you wouldn't know of this wiki policy WP:MMANOT. As you can see, it clearly states that PRIDE is very notable organization. Jahahn (gab) 00:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below) WP:MMANOT is an essay, not a policy. How did all these articles get created without regard to citation and sourcing? A clickthrough of the template reveals most of these events have virtually no sourcing. If Pride FC was a significant player in MMA, then surely someone can pull a couple of magazines out and provide sources justifying inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sans sources, this is all OR and I see no reason to keep ANY of these events. Since the Pride website can't be used to assert notability, if only Sherdog sources are used, then a majority of these pages fail WP:DIVERSE and must be deleted. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as alternative As a reasonable alternative to deletion or improvement, I recommend we merge all the events and sources into List of Pride events which should be renamed List of Pride Fighting Championships events. The few events which do have significant sourcing could be kept and bluelinked on that list; the others would be nolinked/deleted until sources are found. Nolinked articles could be userfied so that the hard work these contributors have put in wouldn't be lost. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that based on the lack of sourcing, a vast number of Pride events could in fact end up deleted. I don't think User:LibStar wants that, or more of these events would be up for deletion or prodded now. I had the impulse to prod what I saw myself. But I thought, someone could go through my list of contributions, and notice that many of my creations lack inline citations. I'm sure I have provided good sources, but a reasonable case could be made, so someone might tag or prod them. I was thinking, wow, I need to make sure my own creations meet the standard I'm asking others to meet. So I'm going to avoid getting involved in more deletion discussions until I can stop acting in this slightly hypocritical manner. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow the deletion rationale. It looks to me like the nom is rejecting sources such as MMAWeekly and Sherdog because they are about MMA, and are therefore not third party. This is preposterous. Third party sourcing is to avoid sources related to the subject itself, not the general subject matter. We don't (I hope) reject articles from Variety to establish notability of film projects, even though Variety is about the film industry. Or, possibly the nom means something else entirely, in which case, what? gnfnrf (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (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.