Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) *speedy delete no indication of notability, clearly fails the sporting event notability criteria, no mainstream coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC) !vote withdrawn so that discussions can continue unimpeded elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does make a plausible claim of notability, in that it's a major-card event in the UFC. That's sufficient to avoid Speedy Deletion. Whether that's enough notability to justify keeping, that's another question entirely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs)

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.