Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 156

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. Just as in the very similar discussion about UFC 155, WP:NOT concerns need to be weighted far more highly than WP:N concerns. To expand, an article can pass WP:N and WP:V, and still be unsuitable for inclusion based on a single accurate WP:NOT concern. In this AFD, "keep" voters have not successfully overcome the concerns based on WP:NOT.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 156

[edit]
UFC 156 (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 sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the event does not even have a confirmed venue as of yet.
The sources are purely routine announcements of who is going to appear NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. They are also not from WP:reliable sources, the Bleacher report (see here is not, the mmaconvert source (ignoring the fact the url contains "rumors") is nothing more than a fight card and the mmajunkie.com one has a link recommending readers go to the rummer section of the website, something you would not associate with a source that has "a reputation for fact-checking". Mtking (edits) 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose Much as the other 155 numbered UFC events that are notable and have stand alone articles, this event with a Championship event headlining it handily meets notability requirements. The article is in its infancy because more information is currently unavailable, but will become so in the coming weeks. There is already good work on the article and it would be a waste of effort to delete it, then just create it in a few weeks. Mtking is a troll, will a responsible admin put an end to this guy? He has done nothing beneficial at all with respect to MMA on WP, only antagonizing and trolling the members of the MMA Project. How long can people just bother other editors before something is done?I remember halloween (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP is, may I remind you a Encyclopedia, not a place for fans to read up on speculation (that is what mmajunkie, Sherdog and mmaconvert are there for) nor is it a place to have an article for every sports event, yes summarise seasons or years on an overview article using good and reiliable secondary sources. If after the event it is clear that there is non-routine coverage of more than just the results, in other words something non-routine happened and more than the MMA blogasphere is talking about it then that's when the article should be created and not before. In the mean time absent the non-routine non reliable sources this should be deleted. Mtking (edits) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another simple example of the rank dishonesty here, it was already made clear to the OP in the AfD for UFC 155 (and also in the past) that mmajunkie is simply one brand for USA Today's sports coverage (this is clearly noted at the bottom of their website). Yet not a day latter, he again tries to pass it off at a different venue as the blogosphere. It would be interesting to see if anyone takes these AfD's seriously given these plain facts. Agent00f (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow that just because mmajunkie is owed by USA Today that it is what WP classifies as a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, in fact given the rumour section of the mmajunkie it would not come close to the bar of "reputation for fact checking".Mtking (edits) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it was also noted previously in the UFC 155 AfD that many if not all papers have gossip or editorial section, yet MtKing is quick to conveniently forget. To be clear, MtKing is now calling USA Today unreputable; but it's not clear whether this is because it reports on MMA, or because reports on celebrity gossip. Agent00f (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and suggestion - It's too early for me to make a decent defense argument for this article, as many things can happen in four months. Per WP:EFFECT ("(...) It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.") i suggest to postpone this AfD discussion. As stated above by I remember halloween, the article will be deleted just to be recreated later. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For anyone not familiar with the _history_ of these deletions, nominator/user MtKing above has been copy/paste AfDing MMA entries to be deleted for an entire year now to approx zero effect. It's a low-cost troll and has been nothing but an atrocious waste of time on everyone's behalf (dozens and dozens of editors) and a blemish on wiki's record for this joke to be allowed to continue for so long. However, I can only imagine that history repeats itself in these cases of asymmetric pestilence against MMA on wiki until some responsible admin chooses to fix this problem. Agent00f (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a simple example of the blatantly disingenuous nature of the AfD text, it tries to imply that no good sources exist for this event. Yet a trivial search for UFC 156 on google or google news show 23 sources for *just the announcement* the first of which include USA Today, Vancouver Sun, Las Vegas Sun, etc, each with different writers/source. It's up to the reader to judge whether the AfD OP can't be bother to do the most basic of research, or could....
pure routine coverage of the announcements nothing more, which WP:NOT is clear on. Have a look here there are over 2,100 google news hits on tonight's NFL game Colts at Jaguars all from the last 24 hours (that goes up to 43,000+ if you look back over the last month) still does not make the game notable as it is all routine coverage of an sports event, nothing out of the ordinary, yes the fans that watch the game will remember it, they might go to NFL.com or some other site to read up on it but (not wishing to tempt fate here) nothing will happen that will be worthy of encyclopedic note. Mtking (edits) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If basic honesty were to be observed here, there are not 2100 hits but rather 374 sources, and the comparison should be between searchs for events that have occurred, not just announced. Also, it's notable that MtKing is well aware (given it's been clarified about a dozen times in the past) that a UFC event is not simply 1 contest, but a conglomeration of distinct contests between separate/unrelated contestants gathered on one night for convenience; this convenience is only reflected in the coverage (eg. wiki). Whether it's notable or not is clear enough from the thousands of contestant bios linked to these events as references for their life accomplishment (about dozen or so on average). This is the default level of wiki coverage across all of sports coverage on wiki whether it's racing, tennis, boxing, and the list goes on. In fact, I can't seem to find one item in what I'm replying to that's accurate or honest. Agent00f (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets notability. UFC 156 does in fact have a venue (Mandalay Bay) and I swapped a few references. --Hmich176 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge or Delete This is not about amount of information, nor is it about number of sources. Says WP:N: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." This is all just routine sports coverage, reliable or not. I fully recommend we delete or merge all upcoming MMA fights. Coppaar (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong" Keep - not routine coverage. Is covered by multiple significant sources. Nominated by anti-MMA editor who should be ignored. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep After an entire year of absurdly draconian edit wars I thought it had finally been settled that individual UFC events both meet notability guidelines --which yes, are enough to keep a page according to most admins if the page is also popular-- and that they were not to be deleted. As for treating it differently from other sports, it's because it is different from other sports. However, you can find pages for individual second-tier tennis tournaments, some individual Sumo bashos last I checked, and even a few individual curling events. This is not a "walled-garden" argument and these pages have been both popular and functional for several years now. The UFC editing contingent has just been more organized than most of those other sports (probably due to a larger fanbase as a reflection of its larger popularity). Can we please not devolve back into completely ridiculous edit wars again? Also there is a Featherweight World Title match and a Light-Heavyweight #1 Contender's match on this card but that shouldn't even matter. What is worth noting is that on any given UFC event there are between 9 and 13 fights with separate ramifications across 8 weight divisions (11 is the usual number). By that standard no one is asking to give pages for individual episodes of the UFC's reality show The Ultimate Fighter, which usually has one fight an episode, but individual seasons all get their own page and that has gone unchallenged. Beansy (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While it may not be big news to some of you, it is major for MMA fans which is an extremely large portion of the population and growing. IF you think in this way, then delete all of the future Super Bowls, College Bowl games, NBA Finals, etc. This is a major sport and many people use wikipedia to learn more about the UFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbin630 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But WP is not a news source, it is not the place MMA fans should come for news and results, our long standing policy is clear on that. Mtking (edits) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. It's a notable event. --Hmich176 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of cause it is relevant, WP is not a sports speculation or results service. Mtking (edits) 05:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias do provide results of important events. --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that speculation is not permitted on Wikipeidia. With that being said, if speculation is written in an article, remove it. The event has been announced, so it's not a speculatory article. I'm not sure how your argument of Wikipedia not being a results service is relevant. There are many articles which provide results of games. UFC information is just as valid as MLB or NFL scoring information. --Hmich176 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Gonzales keep per WP:DENY as it is obvious the nominator is just a deletionist fan boy trying to create a compendium of Afds. Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles; it is not a collection of deletion discussions. The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:RS (policies) due to extensive coverage in neutral sources with a reputation for fact checking. Saying otherwise is akin to saying butts don't defecate! --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet [reply]

  • Keep There are numerous sources for this article and it's not even an event taking place this year. It'll be headlined with a title fight (source), the co main event is set to be a fight between the top two contenders in another division that will likely determine the next title challenger, and these are just the first fights announced. The fact that wikipedia isn't a results site is fine, nobody expects it to be. But it's been shown, multiple times, that these events are notable. A championship fight, a fight with contenders that will shape the division for the coming year, huge impacts that will be cited back to for months and even years to come. If you've ever noticed, every fighter bio on the site links to the event pages so that's one major clue that they're not just routine coverage and boom, irrelevant. Does it really matter that the Patriots beat the Jets in 2007? Not really, no. The season's over and they're moving on. But because of the difference between MMA and other sports, any particular fight becomes a major part of somebody's career. Victories that sparked large momentum, losses that led to a downfall, etc. This is all worthy of note in an encyclopedia because it's relevant when getting context. That's my two cents on the matter. THEDeadlySins (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment this issue needs to be resolved in a different way than individual page AfDs. The user Mtking has now taken part in the 100+ mma AfDs. two interesting examples would be UFC 152 now a B class article, and UFC 148 which has been nominated as a good article. the focus should be on building high quality articles, not bulk deleting mma articles. i would really like to see some sort of Dispute resolution on this issue as it does not seem to be working itself out. Kevlar (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article contains virtually no well-sourced prose and is largely just a list of future, anticipated, fights. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock[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_156&oldid=1138752774"