Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strikeforce Challengers: Kennedy vs. Cummings

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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce Challengers: Kennedy vs. Cummings

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY editor blocked by BWilkins

Keep as this one is actually notable. It was televised, featured named fighters, was from a major promotion, was covered in multiple press sources, etc. Please stop using the same copy and paste, lazy, boilerplate heading for every MMA related discussion. Enough is enough. National newspapers are independent of MMA centric websources. By this nomination's rationale, we would not cover SuperBowl games, because they receive the same "routine" coverage for every SuperBowl... --Mdtemp (school) (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mdtemp (school) (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions outside this topic. Struck due to obvious attempt to imitate an editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an attempt to mislead people and make them think this is my opinion? Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no problem demonstrating the lasting effect of the event then, as the coverage is all WP:PRIMARYNEWS reports and policy is routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mt king ^(edits) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article consists solely of fight results with only routine sports coverage. Unlike the Super Bowl, there were no champions determined at this event. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just routine coverage of a routine fight card. There's no indication of notability or non-routine coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Mtking.
LlamaAl (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR as deleting factual information about a notable event serves no useful purpose and does not in anywise benefit anyone. As such this nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --BStudent0 (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the "ignore all rules" is only half of the policy. it is based on the conditional "if it improves the encyclopedia". you are making a claim "that it doesnt hurt", but an unsupported claim like that is not sufficient. how does it actually improve the encyclopedia? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 26 October 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.