Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 150

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 delete. per WP:CRYSTAL Please see SW's list of points that I too ignored because they had no merit. Guerillero | My Talk 07:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 150

[edit]
UFC 150 (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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still over three months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Mtking (edits) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:There was a recent discussion about merging this to the 2012 UFC events article (or to a newly minted 2012 UFC Numbered events article) recently on the talk page that was shouted down for a variety of non-policy reasons. It is a shame that the AfD is started up on the same day the merge closes, but the article cannot stand on it's own for the time being Hasteur (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept a merge to a list article as an alternative to deletion? Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of the '<year> UFC events' style articles, and including it in an article on 2012 UFC events would have more chance of survival than a standalone article. I'm concerned, however, about notability - we generally cover future events on the basis of their notability right now, not on whether they might become notable later. Right now from looking at the article, I don't see any current indication of notability. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we give the same style treatment to future episodes of TV series or future WWE events. I know this goes in the line of WP:OTHERSTUFF but I'm trying to demonstrate good will by attempting to save as much of the MMA content as possible. As has been demonstrated with previous UFC events, once we get closer to the event or after it, there's significant coverage present. Hasteur (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand you're trying to act as a negotiator of sorts on MMA matters, but you do rightly point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really justification. If I had the time and awareness of future TV show articles I'd probably vote to delete those as well. Significant coverage is certainly a boon, but ideally to establish notability we should try to have coverage from independent sources - newspaper articles, televised news coverage, that sort of thing.
I know you're experienced and don't need to be told this, but it's perhaps worth noting that this project is an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac or fansite. You might reasonably expect to pick up yesterday's hot-off-the-press copy of Britannica and find an entry there on a notable MMA fight in January, but you're not going to find a three line entry about an event that won't happen for 4 months with the only info being tentative card data. I think this is one of those situations where fans need to understand that we're not a news site, it's not our goal to have up-to-the-minute information available. We're slower-paced than that, and it won't hurt anyone to hold off on posting information about a future event until it actually becomes notable. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit... I've gone round the bend in trying to keep these articles. Someone please apply an oily fish to my face liberally for trying to save everything MMA related. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. Portillo (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2012 in UFC events. This article contains practically no prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT. It contains only routine coverage of the fight card (the fight card itself). It lacks diverse sources by having only a single non-MMA source which covers only the location of this event and previous UFC events in Denver and nothing more about the event itself. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because a world title in a top organization is being defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:34, 20 May 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 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the fact that this is a future event that has not occurred yet. BearMan998 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). A compromise of merge to 2012 in UFC events is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: As per nomination. --Tow Trucker talk 21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote This AfD isn't about notability. I tried to find a guideline for when an upcoming UFC Event page can be created, but failed to find any clear guidelines in my quick search. I see no problem when an Event has been announced (date and location has been confirmed) *and* when the Main Event has been filled. Main Card and Preliminary Card is subject to change, up and until fight day, really. I agree (but WP:IDONTLIKEIT) that a card announced three months ahead of time fails as a stand-alone wikipage. This is not to be confused that it fails notabillity! UFC 151 was deleted, and I see no factional difference to let this Afd fail and the other pass. The only difference is time and the limit should be discussed. If we should follow current rules, no UFC page should be created until the day of the event. That is subpar of the expectation a normal user have. A future compromise is to have a section on the badly formed Omnibus or a new page for upcoming UFC Events.Mazter00 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE All Similar AfDs. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all have very similar contents, same AfD arguments and same users making them. The fact that I have to copy/paste this several times is evidence enough. The procedure for multiple deletions should be used to nominate, say, all UFC events instead of one by one. Doing them individually seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least by doing noms all at once the space can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that it's left in. TL;DR: 200 nom >> 1 nom, just do the 1 for all applicable pages so everyone can move on. The objection to this has already been answered at nom for ufc 149. Agent00f (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mtking (edits) 06:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't similar to high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero05 07:21, 28 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_150&oldid=1138752789"