Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Due to serious issues involving canvassing and sockpuppetry there is no prejudice against re-nominating this article at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFL 1

[edit]
SFL 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we go again, no indication that this MMA event is going to be notable, right now it is promotional and sourced to routine coverage. (fails WP:EVENT) Mtking (edits) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they are the just routine coverage any sports event gets. To highlight the point take for example a regular season home game for any NFL team , it will get vastly more coverage than this event will,it would have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, but we don't have an article, because the coverage is routine. It is the same here, how is this event (which as not happened) going to be of historical and encyclopaedic significance ? Mtking (edits) 05:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly consider comparing American Football with MMA? And you'd only need to look at so many other promotions that have events on here to see that what your trying to imply goes more for them than this. Remember, this event isn't just another MMA event, prior to the fights, major, and I mean MAJOR celebrities are going to perform live in-front of the paying audience, this event is far more notable than even some UFC events when considering factors such as notable actiosn happening (J-Lo and LMFAO performing!) and relevance (this is the very first event to be shown in India). So for these reasons I ask anyone making up their minds whether to keep or not to consider what I just said and use it to help make your decision. Beside its like I said, why delete a event page that shows more notability than that of a event page such as, say, Shark Fights 18 and let that page remain without even giving that a AfD? BigzMMA (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited from those doing the pre-fight show, and just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean we should retain this article. Mtking (edits) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if constant articles are appearing up saying 'Super Fight League 1' in it, then it is notable. The performers are there primarily to open the show up for the Indian audience, for most who never have seen an MMA event before due to the fact there has never been one held in India. This event has 'Notable' written all over it from the start. Bollywood is talking about it, major Indian new sources are talking about it, many notable actions are happening throughout the event and your telling me that this event is not notable? And to elaborate on what I said before about how can you possibly compare the NFL and an MMA event, the NFL is a team-based sport that runs their events throughout seasons, with a mega event - The Super Bowl, happening at the very end of the season. MMA is runned very differently, too differently for there to be such a comparison, as MMA hold single events at a time with no guarantee for a future event, but it always happens if it you know what I mean (as in whos says the next UFC event is guaranteed?). Because of this Boxing events can have Wiki pages (Ring Kings), but single NFL matches outside the Super Bowl cannot or wouldn't be strong enough to have one. For certain MMA events though, such as the example I gave earlier on, is a true example to which sort of event should have their own event page, but this one is different for 3 big reasons, 1)It is the very first MMA event in India, 2) The amount of things happening during the event has helped gained the event attention, and 3) The media, both in India and internationally, has meant the event is deeply in the public eye. And THIS is why this event should stay. BigzMMA (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per nom. As I previously discussed with the article creator, an article about SFL 1 primarily as an MMA event is not likely to be notable. As an entertainment event it might be notable, but the article hasn't shown that to be the case. It may still be possible that this event may be notable more for it's entertainment aspect as a whole, but that still needs to be proven. I've also told the article creator before that just because there are other crappy MMA event articles doesn't mean SFL 1 gets to stay. If someone wants to nominate the Shark Fights event articles, I'll likely be happy to !vote delete them too. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you do keep forgetting TreyGeek that this event really is notable. There are dozens of independent articles talking about many of the things happening with the event, ranging from the celebrities singing prior to the fights, to who is going to be the commentators, head referee etc. It is a main topic talked about in Bollywood right now, India's main online new sources are talking about it, all round it meet WP:GNG, and with that, should be allowed to stay. This simple Google News search - https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=Super+Fight+League+1&oq=Super+Fight+League+1&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=3643l8892l2l9676l15l15l0l0l0l0l90l943l15l15l0&gs_l=serp.3...3643l8892l2l9676l15l15l0l0l0l0l90l943l15l15l0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=5dfc45bc41067a46&biw=1024&bih=677 shows just how talked about it is. Also if you look at the Wiki page itself, there are 7 referred articles relating to the event itself, which by looking at some of events you choose 'Keep' for, they had a similar number of referred articles on the page, some more, some less.
See below. Mtking (edits) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity of sources is not the issue, none of the sources demonstrate how this event meets WP:EVENT, the sources are just routine coverage of an forthcoming event. For example vastly more sources will be available on last night's FC Barcelona soccer match, when they beat Bayer Leverkusen but that match won't get an article. Mtking (edits) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mt, you cannot keep using team-based season sports as examples as to why MMA events cannot have their own events pages. If that were the case, then in theory every single UFC event should immediately deleted. The coverage this event has received so far is outstanding when considering the sources that are writing them (many high level Indian news sites including Times of India), this is far more than just routine, routine coverage would be from websites such as MMAJunkies, BloodyElbows and Sherdog, the articles out there are from much more independent source, not just from the promotion itself, but from the entire sport period. BigzMMA (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate that sports events need to have non-routine coverage, and all the ones so far advanced for this one are just that. Mtking (edits) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the comparison is apples and oranges, they are way too far apart in contrast to even use as a reason why any non-season single person sports like MMA or Boxing and season team-based sports like American Football and Rugby cannot have an event page. If you feel so strongly about this 'opinion' about MMA event then why don't you start creating AfDs for UFC events? BigzMMA (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no indication that this meets WP:EVENT. It's extremely unlikely the coverage of this event will be of long duration. As for the previous keep comment, the promotion can hardly be considered notable when this is its first event and Wikipedia's purpose is not to "help MMA in India flourish." Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone accusing me of trying to 'bring in people to help tie in the vote in my favour' I have already answered to this on my talk page, in which I have only asked people from previous AfD debates that I have been involved in, just because I only did a few suddenly it means that I am trying to gain 'Keep' votes! If read carefully, anyone would find that I did not what-so-ever give even a hint that I was asking them to vote 'Keep', but I was just saying that they might be interested in taking part in the debate. I also gave them some basic information about the event, saying that its a main topic in Bollywood, main event fight and the performances prior to the fights, but I gave no indication as to what they should vote for. BigzMMA (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I find it quite confusing that I've been accused of turning opinions to my favour, yet if you look at nearly every single Keep vote on this page (mine included) that someone is questioning our vote while no-one is bothering to question the 'Delete' votes, apart from the one from TreyGeek that I commented on, but that was only because he mentioned me in that comment so I wanted to answer what he said. But generally, I'm not the one trying to sway votes in my favour, you'd only need to look up to see who is doing that. BigzMMA (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed BigzMMA (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN makes it up to those wishing to keep this article to demonstrate it that meets WP:EVENT and as it stands none of those advocating keep have pointed to any source that does that. Mtking (edits) 01:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE, because as it stands none of those advocating deletion have demonstrated any actual effort to find sources or that they have any degree of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. From whom must we protect this information?! --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to WP:AGF and that the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to assume. The nominator starts off with a WP:DICK way of "Here we go again" and then rambles on about how he just doesn't like the topic. BigMMA or whatever has already adequately demonstrated the notability of the subject. Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator has to at least demonstrate he made an real effort to find sources. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now to get it out of the way, yes, I am here after getting a message on my talk page to comment, so no one needs to add some ridiculous small script saying as much to my post. But anyway, regardless, looking over the article and considering the association with J-Lo, Bob Sapp, etc., it has mainstream participants and all that demonstrate cultural and sporty significance alike. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bigzmma. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [1] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SFL_1&oldid=1090454591"