Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 146

Add links
Page semi-protected
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. Many "keep" opinions are highly problematic for several reasons, including failure to address our inclusion criteria, personal attacks or possible canvassing. But there are also bona fide arguments to the effect that this event has received substantial coverage. Overall, there is plainly not the required consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 146

UFC 146 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This yet to happen sports event fails a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mtking (edits) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the MMA community will contribute to the individual pages and not the 2012 page. The 2012 page now has outdated fights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.44.158 (talk) — 92.5.44.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 92.5.44.158 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Nonsense. UFC 1 took place 20years ago and remains historically important; major boxing events for boxing world title remain historically important decades and decades after the events.

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep UFC events blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could the nominator please hold off creating any more of these AfD pages whilst there are on-going discussions taking place at the AfD pages listed above. There does not seem to be any consensus to delete 142/143 so why create yet another page on 146. Please wait until there is an outcome and a consensus to delete before continuing. Glen 03:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "...Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group...". This does. International is the wide region. And, the event has a significant impact over the following groups:
  • Those who follow the events
  • Betting agencies
  • Contestants
  • People involved in the industry itself, such as promoters
  • Endorsement agencies
  • Advertisers
  • Media organizations ranging from newspapers to television
  • Competing MMA organization
  • Training schools and agencies
  • Professional fighter groups and camps
  • Professional fighter management agencies
This event likely has a significant impact on all of these groups. Many likey use these event articles as valuable resources for research. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If only the event met WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, and failed WP:ROUTINE. USEFUL is not an argument which traditionally plays well in AFDs. BusterD (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the original poster referred to WP:SPORTSEVENT as a reason for deletion, however I come to the opposite conclusion. A UFC card is a collection of fights (usually 12), as such this meets the definition of a season or series. The Main event is a UFC Heavyweight World Championship fight, which is of particular notability. This card has gained further notability even before the event as one of the main event participants was removed due to failing a PED test. Furthermore, the policy states "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements'. the UFC (although MMA is not a team sport)is the top MMA promotion in the world. Its heavyweight championship is the most notable possible achievement within the sport.Trok333 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Trok333 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Strong Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:SPORTSEVENT WP:MMAEVENT: Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.
  1. There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISM
  2. This article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
  3. While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
  4. Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct place for this type of information and detail.
  5. I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
  6. There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
  7. There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of votestacking, or are you just assuming because the votes are lining up against you? -- Tim314 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really resent when this gets tacked onto my comments on the talk page for an AFD. I'm a regular contributor, just not a REGISTERED contributor. I don't feel the need to have an account, and I shouldn't have to sign up for one for my opinion to have validity. This kind of elitism, that your opinion only matters if you're a "regular" or "registered" REALLY needs to stop. 68.224.160.47 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly journals? This isnt a science article. Portillo (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For all the reasons I and others already posted on the UFC 145 discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.168.101 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — [[User:67.194.168.101]|67.194.168.101]]] ([[User talk:67.194.168.101]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.194.168.101]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:67.194.168.101]|67.194.168.101]]] ([[User talk:67.194.168.101]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.194.168.101]|contribs]]) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
This one was my comment, sorry I wasn't logged in. You can see from my edit history it's not a single-purpose account. Also, I wasn't canvassed, I visit the page for each UFC event to check whose participating, and I noticed the deletion proposal on this one and the discussion on the UFC 145 article. I frequently use wiki to check past events as well, reviewing a fighter's history before his next fight --as I believe many people do. Tim314 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets the criteria stated at WP:Notability (sports), in my point of view, although that guideline doesn't have this specific case, I think it fits as this event is kinda of a Final series of other sports, and this kind of event usually recieves front page news from various diferent countries all over the world.
Not only by the championship fight, Overeem was supposed to fight Dos Santos, but as he got caught in anti-dopping exam, this will certanly lead to a suspension in his MMA Carrear, enduring this event lasting effect, as Overeem may fight the winner of this fight.
At WP:Deletion_policy#Editing_and_discussion there are alternatives to deleting an article, such as improving it, as this event didn't even happened yet, there is a lot of ways in improving it, therefore, making it not an "sport score article". - Ricardo1701 (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 06:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the idea is ludicrous. As others have said, amalgamating information from all events into one page would mean a very long, cluttered, confusing and anarchical entry - that aside I feel each event requires its own page since It does not contravene any criterias cited and these events are big enough to warrant to their own entries. I don't think this sort of entry should be compared to the lack of entries for other sports. They have much simpler formats such as one time playing another set team with a simple resultant score. With MMA, you have a whole bunch of other issues surrounding the run up to the event and the actual event itself. Like boxing matches, with these sorts of events, the emphasis is on individuals and their performances, not teams of 12~15 people on each side. I think the issue here is more the fact that there are many more UFC matches than there are boxing matches for example. If you had a Tyson V Holyfield, or Pacquiao V someone or Mayweather v someone every month, you'd have seperate entries for each of those matches. It's just that boxing doesn't have as big a talent pool. Volatileacid (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Volatileacid (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • The ONLY reason this page is up for deletion is because Mtking doesn't like MMA. It has nothing to do with Wiki guidelines. These events are no different than a Wiki page for a play, a NBA season, or a movie. If these pages are deleted, it just shows that trolls have gotten too much control of Wiki and are now saying what does/doesn't belong in an open, public encyclopedia based purely on their own dislike of the sport. This is ridiculous to even have to defend this page. Mtking has, along with his friends, been stalking users and blocking them for suggesting that this page shouldn't be deleted just because 1 troll doesn't like it. Again, deletion of these pages makes it apparent that Wiki is here for the trolling mods with ego problems. Stalk me, block me, I don't care. I will speak my opinion. I'm sure this will be deleted by one of the mods who has been actively stalking me but he can read it. Tell me that this is "out of order" just like the other factual comments I made, but what's out of order is actively trying to destroy the purpose of this site. Free information for all, as long as the trolls who run Wiki are OK with it......right.
If these pages go, so should the America's Top Model pages that Mtking is so found of. Those are vastly less notable than a sporting event that isn't entirely scripted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)— 70.147.72.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 70.147.72.167 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Strong Keep I think the UFC has a special degree of cultural significance among sporting events because the format of the event is designed to allow various culturally significant martial arts to be tested in the safest possible environment. This allows participants to be uniquely culturally representative of their country and their countries' traditions in a way that other popular sporting events such as basketball, football, baseball, or American football can't. The specific event information follows the success of each location through data about the gate, and it tracks things like fighter pay which are economically significant and can vary from event to event, unlike other sporting events, in which they sign long-term contracts which last several years. Additionally, these articles track pay bonuses which are individually awarded in each event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiScott (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — SenseiScott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SenseiScott (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment Due to the large number of AfDs on MMA event articles I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. I would invite anyone interested in discussing what MMA events should be considered notable to join the conversation. --Pat talk 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hesitate to comment but I hope the "keepers" will take this as constructive suggestions and insight into the "deletionists" mentality. "Articles about notable [sporting events] should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Currently, UFC 146 appears to contain only "routine news coverage of such things as [fight] announcements". If MMA event articles (UFC or otherwise) included more prose discussing the significance of the event, the background of bouts and the fighters involved in them, what happened during the bouts, and any after effects of the event then "deletionists" will have less to argue from. As concrete examples of what I'm referring to look at UFC 94 and UFC 140 as articles that contain significant amounts of well-sourced prose that discuss all aspects of the event. If a particular event is notable, the article should explain why it is notable and UFC 146 fails to do so. You have to look hard to realize there is a championship match on the line. There is significance that this is the only UFC event to have a main card of only heavyweight fights. There is/was huge controversy surrounding the original main event when Overeem failed a pre-fight drug test. None of these issues are discussed in any great detail. If they were discussed for more than a single sentence, it adds weight to outsiders (non-MMA viewing folks) that this may really be a notable article and will help support the "keepers" case. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This event is still weeks away and is of signifance because it features a championship bout as well as an all heavyweight main card. I won't reiterate the other valid reasons identified early, but let me also point out that the event hasn't even happened yet which makes this article largely a work in progress. This isn't the final version. By the time the event happens, clearly more notable things will take place and provide plenty more information to be incorporated into the article. Deleting this article would be extremely premature and obviously just selfserving as TreyGreek and MtKing try to force their omnibus down everyone's throat. Pull lead (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ignoring 180 Pages of precedent? Dare I say there is more to this issue than prose? Perhaps someone making a power play to assert their ideology of what Wikipedia is / is not. --Boston2austin (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 07:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm really surprised people are questioning standalone UFC articles on notability grounds. I'll try to provide what background I was able to find in about five minutes of research, and will provide citations upon request. UFC has been picked up in primetime by a major US network, Fox, which saw a 42% increase in viewership over previous Fox offerings in that timeslot. In South Africa, an MMA event (not UFC) pulled in a 25% rating, which bested more established (shall we say "scholarly?") sports such as rugby and cricket. All the major sports sites such as Yahoo and ESPN have opened up MMA-specific subsections to their sites. 700,000 Americans plunked down $25 to watch the last UFC event. UFC in unquestionably the global apex promotion of MMA events. We create a dedicated page, most of which with sub-articles, on every ATP Challenger event (the second tier in men's tennis), of which there are far, far more events in a year than there are UFC events, and although I can't find any research specifically comparing ATP Challenger tour coverage and interest vs. UFC coverage and interest, I would be shocked if the Challenger tour is as widely covered, or as popular, as UFC events(yes, I know, I know, wp:otherstuffexists). The notability and popularity of MMA in general and UFC in particular should be readily apparent to anyone who does the slightest bit of research and looks at it without bias. Mreleganza (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that my KEEP entry above (along with others) has been appended with a (Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Volatileacid has been canvassed to this discussion.) I need to CATEGORICALLY deny that this is the case. Please look through my history; I edit a wide variety of articles and have done so for over 6 years under this account. It appears Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) may have a personal agenda in relation to adding these tags to various comments throughout this page especially in light of the fact that he/she has created AfD pages relating to UFC content previously. Back on the 9th of December 2006, you will note I made an edit to UFC 8!! I hope any other administrators reading this will note the apparant conflict of interest by certain administrators here excercising personal bias over logic and rules. Volatileacid (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You being canvassed has nothing to do with your past edits you maybe be confusing that with SPA. Mtking (edits) 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is a very notable planned event from the most notable mixed martial arts organization in the world. Hell, it's an event with the main event being a heavyweight championship bout. Where is the difficulty finding the notability and lasting effect here? --NINTENDUDE64 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOCKPUPPET INVESTIGATION Nintendude64 is currently part of a sockpuppet investigation here.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment. Yeah, by some raving lunatic whom I'm going to be filing an incivility report against if he keeps it up. I found this AfD while I was looking at UFC events... which I've done for a long time because it's a quick, reliable source on upcoming UFC cards. Do not try to disparage my !vote with irrelevant information, thank you. --NINTENDUDE64 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that is in your opinion, because the sources have not been forthcoming to support that, and secondly, notability is not inherited, in other words the notability (or not) of UFC has no relation on whether an event they host is notable. Mtking (edits) 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously arguing that a UFC event has wp:notability issues? Like the UFC or not, that assertion is completely ridiculous. I realize that anyone can fabricate some narrative and make contorted interpretations of Wikipedia rules to support their own agenda, but if a UFC event doesn't rise to the level of wp:notability, then apparently we've made some bold leaps on what constitutes wp:notability while I wasn't looking, which would then further demand a complete reexamination of a large portion of the Wikipedia corpus on Sport. This is a trivially easy keep. LoverOfArt (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that LoverOfArt (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
!@#$%^&* @ "an editor has expressed concern that this user has been canvassed to this discussion". That, ladies and gents, is what you call a 'baseless accusation'. Apparently, this article has arrived at that tragic point where a narrow group of agenda driven partisans are employing 'wiki tactics' to advance their position. I'd seriously suggest this be thrown up the food chain. If we delete this, then we go back and re-examine every single entry on other notable, one-time sporting events, with deletion the implicit outcome. Bad facts make bad laws. Topical ignorance makes bad rules. An agenda is afoot. LoverOfArt (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of WP:NOT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT these events are comparative to a football match or a baseball game, once they finish they get the routine coverage any sports event gets and then they move on to the next one, there is no demonstration of any enduring notability. Mtking (edits) 07:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "these events are comparative to a football match or a baseball game, once they finish they get the routine coverage any sports event gets and then they move on to the next one, there is no demonstration of any enduring notability," is blatantly untrue on two fronts: while there are there are hundreds of NFL games and over a thousand NBA and MLB games a year, in 2011 there were just 24 UFC events (not including 2 "TUF" TV shows listed on the wiki page). Due to their comparatively infrequent nature, they are far more notable than a run-of-the-mill baseball game, which brings me to your second canard. Because of the relative infrequency of UFC events, they almost always include championship events/title defenses which are discussed in the media both long before the match and long after. These two statements are so plainly obvious and verifiable in seconds that you make it difficult to assume good faith and not to suspect you simply do not like or respect MMA and don't want much of it in your Wikipedia.Mreleganza (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are comparative to football CHAMPIONSHIPS, AFC and NFC, you won't see an individual article for every AFC championship. If you can so easily find mainstream sources for these events, ADD THEM. ADD a SINGLE article that shows something other than this fight happened and so and so won. Hell, you show me the article, I'll do the rest. You seem to confuse popularity with notability,even if popularity were the basis on which to only judge notability, UFC cannot touch American Football,Soccer,Baseball(well maybe only if you include Japan),Basketball,etc.The biggest issue here is WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't matter, This event only needs a non MMA only source that shows something other than ROUTINE coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on why the most fitting comparison for UFC events is NFC/AFC Championship games, and not, say, NFL Playoffs? I'm not understanding the distinction, other than one has dedicated wiki pages and the other does not. At any rate, per your request, here are two non-MMA sites that saw fit to cover specific details unique to UFC 146 and not merely just listing fight cards, times and locations, etc. This one notes that it is the first UFC event wherein every fight on the card is a heavyweight bout: http://www.csnwashington.com/pages/video?PID=1iMLTB-YbFeATxWmGfRBRcap9Pd02U6MHLkA3Am Here is one that reports on how the actual title fight and the main event of the card had to swap out the challenger after the original challenger tested too highly for testosterone and lost his license to fight in the state where the fight is being held: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/04/25/ufc-star-alistair-overeem-banned-for-2012-after-failed-drug-test/ These developments are not earth-shattering, but they do go beyond the simply listing the matchups, place and time, and my citations come from non-primary, non-MMA devoted news organizations. As such, I do not see them running afoul of the guidelines written in WP:ROUTINE (although I now see they are already noted in the UFC 146 article so I reckon you have already rejected these claims. If you have, I'd like to hear your reasoning and how it squares with the wording of WP:ROUTINE): While storylines exist for every sporting event, I don't see how these are any more routine than those cited in, for example, the 2007 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational or, so help me God, the 2012 Morocco Tennis Tour – Rabat, which contains nothing except event results. As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." (emphasis mine) I have tried to provide these comparisons to existing sporting event norms on Wikipedia WITHOUT relying strictly/solely on them. Mreleganza (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mreleganza::First I congratulate you on finding a single source that does in fact start to demonstrate significance, I don't know about the video link, but the post article is exactly the kind of thing we need for a significant event, the biggest problem I see is that this is still a future event and fails WP:FUTURE, I didn't realize that earlier when I offered to help if you'd find the sources. I'm going to work on adding the sourced material from the post, I would also ask that the closing administrator save the page info so it can be recreated after the fight easily. If you could find one more source that would be helpful, to supplement the video, i don't really want to try and watch that and type out quotes/prose. We may be able to get this closed as keep with the addition regardless of WP:FUTURE, to demonstrate the good faith towards MMA articles that are properly sourced, and meet the policies that have led to others deletions. Te way you keep repeating the WP:OTHERSTUFF language actually just does damage to your argument,I use AFC champinships because they are the Championship games, UFC doesn't have playoffs, they have fights that lead to championship bouts.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also might use thie search, the top three hits are totally WP:RS,https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&gl=us&q=overeem+testosterone&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=di2wEymOWlGZ4VMfp0SXtz2VcTl8M&ei=haahT7G4EYTGtgfA9dSBCA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQqgIwAA
Here is a written source that should supplement the video, which speaks to the unusual number of changes "domino effect" as the article calls it) to the main card, and also makes mention of the all-heavyweight main card that was a larger point of the video: http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2012/04/24/ufc_146_drug_test_changes_schedule/ Mreleganza (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Not even a discussion. WWE events, the Superbowl, the Grey Cup, Stanley Cup Finals, boxing cards, all have their own pages. Seems a case of a user who dislikes the sport trying to get rid of it. Killswitch Engage (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The deletion request, identically to all the "notability" tags on other UFC event pages is completely ridiculous. Such tags should be cause for instant blocking of the deletionist perpetrator and reconsideration of the apologist drivel behind which he or she hides, pretending that this is proper procedure in keeping with Wikipedia rules and regulations. Go ahead, put a "civility" deal on next. That's what goes with this isn't it?--Achim (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments above for this AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is obvious trolling in multiple MMA articles, would a sane administrator please put a stop to this?

-- Scarpy (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Mtking seems to be trolling wikipedia. He has wanted numerous UFC Articles deleted. The user seems to either be attempting to troll or dislikes mma. User has said you don't see this on Football , because Football only has to due with one match. Wikipedia also is the most significant place to find UFC information , other than the UFC website itself , and Youtube. Wikipedia has been updating UFC events ever since the very first UFC, UFC 1, and is now at UFC 146. The page can also reveal that if a fighter 'won' or 'lost'. People have been know to put a fighter won when they didn't. Also the user (Mtking) seems to only target UFC Events. Leading me to believe that he just doesn't like or respect the sport. If he was against MMA completely , articles on Strikeforce or Bellator would be flagged for deletion as well. The user should be warned about constantly flagging UFC events in what is basically for fun. The user has also seemed to disrespect article supporters , saying things such as "but the page does not cover everything that happened in the event , sports like Football , Basketball Soccer , and Rugby do not update every event they do. The user just does not seem to give valid , believable and/or correct information. The user should be given a strong warning. --TheShane39569 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. This event has and will continue to receive coverage in large mainstream press outlets. MMA and the UFC are past the point where articles such as this one (and the related ones nominated for deletion) specifically need to cite those sources to satisfy editors such as the nominator. And just generally, when a deletion nomination says something like, this article is "currently only sourced to..." that's not a relevant piece of information if other sources exist that establish notability. The article could easily be sourced to ESPN, USA Today, or countless other publications, and the nominator could have figured that out by doing a Google News search. This is wikilawyering at its worst. It's highly misleading to imply that the article must cite sources that establish notability. That's not the case; the article must cite reliable and verifiable sources so that readers know that it contains good information. The point of citing sources is not to preemptively defend against spurious AfDs, and we should be clear about this. These articles are immensely useful to readers who want to find information about these events, which is why Wikipedia's practice has settled into its current form of individual articles for all of these events. My argument for keeping applies to all related AfDs. I'm not going to copy and paste it, though. Croctotheface (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't care enough to read the entire above discussion, but the event has received coverage on multiple mainstream sports websites. For example, TSN, one of Canada's largest sports sites [1] [2] [3] and the British ESPN [4]. In fact, a Google News search shows coverage from a lot of non-MMA sources, such as Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and FOX News. Not only that, but because of the controversy surrounding the positive drug test of Overeem, there is the potential for this page to be inproved upon quite a bit. -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 8 May 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/UFC_146&oldid=1169531642"