Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 88

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 88

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. The event did not include an type of championship fight that might have helped contribute to proving lasting significance. The vast majority of sources that I was able to locate are MMA-centric sites and do not help establish notability. Ish dar ian 13:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these are sometimes mentioned in coverage of subsequent events, and there seems to be as much as for some of the motor racing or Olympic Games events. It's also part of a series, and this seems to be the most useful way of organising the articles; start merging or deleting and it results in a mess such as 2012 in UFC (which is a combination of separate event articles and links, not a summary, and should be split into separate articles). Peter James (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Liddell is one of the most important mma fighters ever. I also count four former UFC champs on that card. What;s wrong with them being mma centric? I saw a nightmare before christmas gameboy game not get deleted because it had reviews from 20 or so game magazine.Other stuff, but there is someone out there who will agree. Don't vote keep because of that. Just think about for later. To the stalkers, now is your time and turn to respond. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - I diagree with the assessment by Ish dar ian that "MMA-Centric" websites are not notable. If it's a secondary sources from a reputable source which supports the material in the article, shouldn't that be all that matters to pass WP:SOURCES The Yahoo source falls under that catagory, as well as MMA Junkie (part of USA Today). The other two aren't great, but half are solid. It needs better sourcing and more context, but I feel it passes WP:GNG with what's currently on the page. Worst-case scenerio, merge it into a omnibus for 2008 in UFC so the article's content isn't lost. Luchuslu (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that the sources are unreliable, just that they don't have a large mention of the fight. The only info used from the Yahoo! article is the Pay-Per-View buy rate for the fight. MMAjunkie is a great site to pull fight info from, but the info taken from there and bloodyelbow is the fighters' payouts. The UFC site can't really be used to establish notability since they are hosting the event. If there are more secondary sources out there that talk about the fight, such as what led up to it and what came after, then they could be added to the article to solidify it; I have no objections to withdrawing my nom if they can be found. Ish dar ian 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://www.sherdog.com/events/UFC-88-Breakthrough-7837 Will including Sherdog as a reference for all the fight information be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.7.220 (talk) 17:23, 21 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.