Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 36 (2nd nomination)

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. Some "keep" opinions are weakly argued, but there are valid arguments for either improving and keeping, or merging the article. Sandstein 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 36

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

Routine event, no evidence of notability via recent coverage. Claritas § 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try re-reading that link, Claritas. Stating that the event is notable because it included a title defense, as the poster to whom you were responding did, does constitute an "explanation...for such a claim of notability". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two world titles were defended at the event, Matt Hughes and Randy Couture fought in the event too. Randy is an ex fighter as well as a Hollywood actor. Also has lasting significance. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great argument. --Claritas § 11:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All UFC shows are signficant to warrant keeping. Please stop trying to get rid of all of them. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge An article 2002 in UFC should be created to omnibus this and other UFC event articles not yet ready for stand alone articles. The only mention of anything after this event are the two sentences "Afterwards, Barnett was stripped of the title when he tested positive for steroids during a mandatory post-fight drug test." and "Nine past or future UFC champions competed on this card (including at least one in each bout), more than any other event in UFC history." they simply state that something happened, not how it effected anything after the event. Kevlar (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There's plenty of material out there that can be used to flesh this article out. Couture's autobiography (Becoming the Natural: My Life In and Out of the Cage) would be a good start - he writes extensively about the event and in particular his match with Barnett. It was a significant turning point in the careers of both men. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An autobiography would not be either reliable or independent. Mt king^(edits) 09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Per WP:WPNOTRS, primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". This is one of those situations, as long as the passages used are selected with appropriate discretion. Furthermore, the source counts as independent so far as notability is concerned, in that a) it was co-written by Loretta Hunt, a journalist affiliated with CBS Sports and the Los Angeles Times, b) it was published by Simon and Schuster, a major publishing house with no connection to the UFC, and c) Couture is retired from fighting and has no current connection to the UFC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the two championship fights (which I would argue make this notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT) and the steroid controversy, you can make a good argument for this event being non-routine. The article needs expansion, but that's not a reason for deletion. CaSJer (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Meets WP:SPORTSEVENT as the event determined two champions of a top league. Also, nine past or future UFC champions (including two UFC Hall of Fame members) competed on this card, therefore passing WP:EFFECT. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply, it exists to prevent people from copying from their newspapers. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply, it exists to prevent people from copying from their newspapers.[reply]
Comment This would be an article to potentially keep if it weren't for its sad state. It cites only a single reference, and that is to show that Mir's submission over Williams was a "Mir lock" and not another kind of submission hold. The article is at least half pure fight results. Therefore, it fails WP:SPORTSEVENT which requires that "notable games should have well-sourced prose". If the article had its prose fleshed out to discuss the background of the event, what occurred during the event, and the after-effects of the event, then I would have little issue !voting keep. Otherwise, in it's current state, I would merge it into an omnibus article such as 2002 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now 5 references, including two of non-routine coverage. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the WP:NOT policy, the article only has one source, a look for others only turns up routine news coverage about the time of the event. The assertion that it has lasting effect due to the championship fight is firstly not backed up by any sources and secondly if you read the sportsevent criteria the intent is clear it is referring to a once a year final game such as "2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final" and not one off winner takes all fights which in 2012 UFC held some 15+ such events. However like TreyGeek and Kevlar suggest content could be merged into a "2002 in UFC events" article, but as one does not exist can't !vote for that however no prejudice to a restore for the purpose of a munge and redirect to such an article. Mt king^(edits) 02:37, 22 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as per Kevlar above. 1292simon (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaSJer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CaSJer brought up very good points. Just by a little searching I've found several sources discussing, even recently, the effects this event had. Especially with the steroid scandal with Barnett which is cited to this day as one of the main reasons Barnett hasn't been back into the UFC since. The event has had lasting significance due to that and there are sources from this year (meaning in the last 5 days, ala here) bringing up UFC 36 and discussing the steroid scandal to back that statement up. As mentioned, the article could use a bit of fleshing out but deletion isn't the right course of action. THEDeadlySins (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2013 (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.