Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. But wait, I can hear you saying, surely the consensus is to just flat-out keep it? If this were a vote, even with all the sockpuppets and possibly canvassed votes, sure, it would be a slam-dunk keeper. But this is not a vote, and the vast majority of those commenting in the "keep" camp have failed, as is noting in the relisting statement, to present a valid argument with a solid basis in WP policy. Linking to a policy and saying "this meets (or does not meet) the following policy" without explaining why is not helpful. I would add that Wikipedia does not, has not, and will not require users to have a personal interest in a subject before they are allowed to discuss it or edit it, in fact it is pretty much the opposite. Persons without a personal interest are far more likely to be able to view a subject objectively and apply policy evenly.The most reasonable suggestion I see here is the one that says to merge all these events into an omnibus article, and it's disappointing to see the lack of response to this eminently reasonable idea that would allow preservation of content while alleviating the concerns about the notability of the individual events. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 140

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
UFC 140 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the only source older than than 24 hrs after the event is an unofficial source of Pay-per-view stats, there is no coverage for this event outside the specialist MMA publications and what there is from those publications is just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mtking (edits) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, so which sources demonstrates the historical significance of this event then ? Mtking (edits) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stating a fact is not a personal attack. If you do not think this topic is notable or non-routine, then you are ignorant of the subject matter. I am ignorant about how some chemical things work. So if I started spouting off jibberish about chemistry, it would not be a personal attack for someone to accurately call me out on that. As far as "lazy" goes, well, come on, do you really, really expect anyone to believe that you looked for sources per WP:BEFORE? The amount available is overwhelming to the point that is flat out insulting to demand anyone else have to show them to you. If you seriously cannot see the sources for yourself by just doing a Google search, then you should not even be asking that question... I should not have to try to persuade what I suspect is at least a teenager that World War II occurred by enumerating source after source when that same person should be able to type n two words and see them all come up. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even MMA's own notability guideline WP:MMANOT. Mtking (edits) 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to that link, this article is notable. The Lightheavweight CHAMPIONSHOP of THE BIGGEST PROMOTION IN THE WORLD!! was defended in a televised card featuring fighters who appear in video games, on cards, etc. One of the all time greats and almost assuredly future hall of famers Tito Ortiz competed. Former champions competed. This card is historically significant by any rationale stretch of the imagination. [1]. The event is still be discussed in news reports from Canada to the beyond. From YahooSports to USA Today. A televised card from THE promotion with a championship fight and at least four former or current champions on the card just cannot be so flippantly and insulting dismissed as subjectively not notable. I mean,comeon!>?--63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being deliberately misleading ? WP:MMANOT#Individual Events says Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". (my bold and underline) so there you have it. Mtking (edits) 23:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus. Individual events are indeed considered notable when they concern the Lightheavyweight Championship of the most notable promotion in the world when hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line and when an audience of millions at home around the world watch the event. The coverage in Brazil, America, Canada, etc. is not "routine", but exceptional. A championship fight is to MMA what a Superbowl is to football. Plus, yeah, it really is better for the world that this article be redlinked and instead we have a discussion about it for people to read, yeah, that's reallll helpful....--63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe any and all UFC events are inherently notable and that many UFC events do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For now I am going to refrain from !voting on this AfD because I'm on the fence. I will say, that the article in its current state does fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article consists mostly (if not nearly entirely) of a collection of results and 'statistics'. WP:SPORTSEVENT says, "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose", which this article doesn't have much of; even the background section is really just a list of facts about the event in sentence form.
WP:EVENT provides additional guidelines which the article, in its current form, does not comply with. Specifically, the article does not show that is of of lasting significance; rather it makes it seem like an MMA event was held, big whoop, there's another in less than three weeks (UFC took a break for Christmas). The article makes no attempt to explain why this event will be important five months from now, let alone five years from now. It also does not show a diversity in sources as all cited sources are from MMA news websites; notable UFC event articles should be able to cite sources from more mainstream media (USA Today, Sports Illustrated/CNN, etc).
Can the UFC 140 Wikipedia article fulfill these guidelines and prove that it is a notable event? It's possible, particularly with it having had a world championship bout on the card. However, in it's current state, it appears it may not fully meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article merely reports the fight results, therefore it fails to pass WP:EVENT or WP:ROUTINE. Sadly, that seems to be true of virtually every MMA event article. As long as the articles consist primarily of fight results, I believe they will continue to not meet the notability criteria. As far as having notable fighters goes, previous discussions at WT:MMA have said that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, you need to actually read the article before commenting. It has sections on critical reception, DVD release, firsts associated with the event, etc. Your claim that it is just results it baltantly false and anyone who actually reads the article can see that. So, did you just boilerplate comment to delete as you seem to do for all MMA events or are you just flatout lying? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why don't we also nominated Super Bowl XLVI for deletion?(Justinsane15 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per User:TreyGeek, who correctly notes that the article has potential. At first I thought April Fool's Day came early when I read this nomination, but in any event, this article can and should be improved, but is unquestionably a notable, historic, and widely covered event with longterm ramifications for the sport. I am especially appalled by the apparent lack of effort on the nominator's part to either find sources or to falsely claim they don't exist. The nomination inaccurately asserts that coverage only exists in specialist MMA sources. this newspaper is NOT an MMA-only rag by any stretch. And nor is Sports Illustrtated. The whole nomination paragraph is demonstrably false, because my source for searches included looking at those actually cited in the article, which does more than just list the results mind you, includes such well-known national media outlets as USA Today, Sports Illustrated, and various other non-MMA specific publications. I do not speak Portuguese, but I would be hardpressed to believe that given Nogueria and Machida's participation that Brazilian media hasn't also covered this event at some length. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Note: The Bachmann Editor Overdrive has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts Block Log.[reply]
  • Keep if you delete this one, then you would have to delete every other MMA event. c.m1994 (wtf is this $#*!?) 00:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SENSE. It concerns a major televised event from the world's most important MMA promotion with major fighters, including a title fight, and was covered in the mainstream press as pointed out above. Moreover, another editor has made considerable improvements to the article since nomination, which could and have should have been done instead of nomination per WP:BEFORE. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]

Keep as par WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:SENSE and for the clear fact that the nominator is fighting an already lost war against any MMA event on here. He's been claiming that any MMA event on here is just WP:ROUTINE and that because of this, they should all go (and has tried so many times from looking at past AfD cases). Well clearly not, because consensus says that UFC events meets more policies than it fails which gives them the right to remain on here. And because of this if any other major promotion has event pages also, as long as they receive a similar amount of coverage, then they can also remain on here. Like I said, its consensus that agrees to keeping these pages, if anyone disagrees with this, you are in your rights to vote against it, but if you start openly questioning the people who vote 'KEEP' in any AfD debate that is swaying for the overall majority vote to Keep the page/s, then maybe it would be for the best to avoid the topic altogether. Better out of it than given yourself heart strain over simple pages which are easier kept than destroyed. BigzMMA (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as frivolous nom by a suspected sock account. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 172.130.252.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete for lack of available sourcing that is both reliable and independent. Not everything a notable organization does is notable, and not every sport event is notable, particularly if only sports related sites and forums are talking about it. These keep coming out of the woodwork, we need to likely make one giant AFD and open it to a larger discussion. I'm sure that would be civil. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be sure to actually read the articles under discussions and to comment on them honestly. The event is covered by Sports Illustrated and USA Today, which are reliable independent sources cited in the actual article... Thank god these Afds are not just votes! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I combed over it better. Most of the refs are not WP:RS, but the one Sports Illustrated article is rock solid and the exact type needed to demonstrate notability. (I did miss that one last time, in a sea of less than reliable links, but this was still my mistake.) It is the only one, however, there is enough coverage from the other weak sources that it is very possible that it passes the criteria, at least in spirit. I struck my !vote. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (removed my own involvement here due to sock Dennis Brown (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Personal attacks on nominator. Ad hominem arguments by almost all of the keep !voters. On the face of it, the sources provided have either not been reliable or contained significant mention. Relisting to allow more valid comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 09:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the end, I agree that this is the best place, DGG was absolutely correct in his close of the other AFD. It will allow putting in the entries that aren't notable enough for their own article, and will consolidate the information in one place making it much more usable and useful for the reader. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that *sometimes* there are some matches that might qualify for a separate article, when they are covered by real independent sources, but these are quite rare, as the rash of AFD is teaching us. Even then, a consolidated article for all them is better, and still allows for the occasional "really notable" event and article in addition to. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.1) has already !voted on this AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article seems to meet all of the criteria for a wikipedia article. It includes multiple independent sources, contains more than just results, contains a good bit of prose, and featured a title-fight by a fighter widely regarded as being one of the world's top ten mixed martial arts currently competing in ANY weight class (Jon Jones, a so-called pound-for-pound champ). The event had historical significance because it capped what many journalist regarded as one of the single best years in MMA history by a single fighter(victories over multiple former champions). I see no problems with its notability. If other editors feel that this article requires additional prose, they can certainly add it. AfD is not the correct process for handling articles that editors feel need additional writing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article details an event wherein a title fight (in the promotion's marquee division no less) is the main event. Implicating that the event is not notable would be... not forward thinking, because it certainly is notable, [as] [shown] [by] the coverage of the event. This coverage has not been mentioned in the article. I believe this article is in need of a [Cleanup], maybe even refimprove. Teamsleep (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is VERY notable, a UFC title was defended at it. Why this was nominated for deletion is crazy to me! Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know I've been asking myself the same question for a while now, my best guess is that a fair number of these people don't event follow MMA. Dennis Brown admitted on the BAMMA 9 AfD that he has no care for the subject, and that reason he participates in MMA subjects here is purely to see if they meet the policies relating to them, hardly a reason in my books, you must have some understanding of the subject if you are to take part in it. BigzMMA (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply What I do know and understand are the guidelines. You don't have to be an expert at "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to actually read and understand the policies. Often, someone who is not emotionally invested in a topic area is better capable of giving an objective opinion as to the quality of sources and whether notability of a subject is at all verifiable. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, common sense has to kick in when talking about removing an MMA event belonging to the biggest MMA promotion in the world, it doesn't matter about the policies, if its branded with the 'UFC' logo, then it has a clear case to why it belongs here. You say that being emotionally involved in the subject is not good, but neither is being emotionally involved in the policies of Wikipedia. Just because you may understand based on these policies what is a good page and what isn't doesn't mean to say that it can take down any pages belonging to a brand like the UFC, because what your trying to say then is that your taking on the UFC. Even though the UFC are not here to defend themselves, the people who watch their product and like the sport will look into policies and find the ones that will defend the UFC, and there are a lot of UFC fans on Wikipedia. This is why your fighting a lost battle here. You can't beat this without a good understanding why the UFC is so big, why it is so popular and how fast it is growing. BigzMMA (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INHERITED. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article seems to fall under WP:MMAEVENT because UFC 140 is still mentioned by sources independent of MMA. Sportsnet reports that due to the good business of this event Toronto will become a regular stop for the UFC [[2]]. Also, the Vancouver Sun referred to the event as the debut of an upcoming Canadian fighter [[3]]. Both of these articles were posted in the last 24 hours, and I believe they demonstrate the lasting effects of an event that occurred on December 10th, 2011. --Pat (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those articles do not demonstrate the lasting significance of this event, they are about the the next event. Mtking (edits) 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete this article whatsoever, anyone who thinks this event isnt notable knows nothing about MMA or Jon Jones. This is the same event where Big Nog was 1st submitted and the same event where Mark Hominick was KO'd in 7 seconds. It was also the 1st time Lyoto Machida was submitted. So yea, KEEP! JadeSnake (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the article doesn't discuss any of these issues. They could be valid points in terms of showing WP:EFFECT and/or the significance of the event. However, they are not mentioned in the article. Adding this material is on my to-do list, but it may take time for me to complete this article (let alone do it for all 100-200 UFC event articles), so feel free to add "well sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People are really trying to nominate this event for deletion? This event is incredibly notable, features 5 current or former UFC champions, a UFC title fight, a UFC record, and had 2 of the biggest moments in recent MMA history. Whoever nominated this for deletion needs to do a little research before nominating pages that they have no knowledge of. This is getting ridiculous... way too many ignorant people with way too much time on their hands trying to ruin MMA on wiki.BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
  • Comment Not a single editor advocating keeping this has addressed the lack of coverage after the event that is not routine in nature, the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy is clear on the fact that when it says " most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". Mtking (edits) 03:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close AfD case now Can an admin please just close this AfD, this case has been going on for weeks now and with the clear consensus telling the world to Keep this article (only one delete vote made compared to the double figure Keep votes), its time we just end this 'debate' now. BigzMMA (talk) 09:37, 28 March 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_140_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1090454275"