Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (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 merge to 2012 in UFC events. Many of the comments made in this discussion have either no basis in policy, or are not reasons to keep/delete an article. After discounting these comments, consensus is to merge this article back to the main article. If notability circumstances change after the event takes place, it may warrant further discussion. For clarification, the following (paraphrased) arguments were considered irrelevant/invalid and were ignored:

The last two bullet points above is probably the one that is most often confused. Notability is not defined by what you think is notable, it is defined by WP:N and WP:GNG. If this topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is notable. Otherwise, it isn't notable, even if Superman comes back from Krypton to fight in the main event. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still two months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Mtking (edits) 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article was recently discussed for a potential merge/redirect on the talk page but was shouted down for many non-policy reasons. It makes sense to merge to a 2012 in UFC Events (or 2012 in UFC Numbered events). Hasteur (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete/merge crystal ball and routine coverage only, including likely only routine coverage after the event. These events occur every month, they are not way notable or of lasting significance, even within the sport. This event will be washed away next month by the next event. If something signficant happens in this event that recieves real non-routine coverage, then it should be split. not before. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of football, basketball, and baseball games sell out. Or more direclty analagous, boxing matches. That doesnt make that individual game/match notable. This one either. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this is headlined by a championship contest at the highest level of the sport. Agent00f (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)— Agent00f (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I would like to disagree. The championship clause seems to suggest that the entire game of the championship is the notable unit. To apply this to an event where the championsip is 1/9th of the entire event does not, in my mind, apply at the same level. I also note that the championship clause is for annual championships. The championship contest to headline the fight was already challenged once this year, so I do not think that the championship clause makes sense. Hasteur (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so let's start listing contests individually instead of grouping them by card/event. Then we can split out just the championship contest later (I'll make sure to watch it and write some "prose" about who hit whom and why, I ensure you I can produce TLDR prose). Or we can stop all this massive busywork for very questionable gain and leave a very clean and well designed format as it is. Also, it might be notable to someone not familiar with the sport that two championship contests is about the most a top level fighter can do per year. Two seems in the ballpark of one. Agent00f (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)— Agent00f (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Hint: You were not supposed to rebut that. In no way does splitting these out into the individual fights make sense. Your response only demonstrates a lack of understanding of how WP works. My response was polite, used modifiers to suggest it was only my thoughts, and explained reasonably why I believed the championship clause did not make sense. No response is ever necessary to this hint to you. Hasteur (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • With further introspection, I thank you for bring to my attention that these were separate contests between unaffiliated fighters mistakenly combined into this "event". Coincidental overlap in location (and not in time) isn't specified in the rules as a valid reason for combining distinct contests, and to fix this it may be best to break down these mistakenly created "events" into contest entries. Those seem up for individual AfD nomination since they seem to lack prose and fail GNG per broad wiki consensus. However, your request that "events" "make sense" doesn't take priority over the clear wording. Per nominator and many other editor's clear precedent on this topic we should carefully follow a consistent interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is a polite request to respect clear higher level consensus instead of deferring to arbitrary inner-sport rules. For example, the words "champion of a top league" is quite clear, and 1/year limit is not specified. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) Please demonstrate (by quoting sources) that your claim that being headlined by this companies "championship" will mean it recives coverage demonstrating enduring notability. Otherwise it is just your opinion. Mtking (edits) 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify what would be acceptable as sources or evidence before goalposts start moving. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the rules more carefully: "Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following" seems pretty clear. Otherwise "championships" in sport generally show no "enduring notability" due to their "routine" occurrence and this rule is rather pointless. We should seek wider input from sports and event voices so that his ambiguity can be resolved with some clarity before rushing to conclusions. This exampleof nomination by same user for same kind of sports event seems to attract differing opinions (and likely different results) despite not even fulfilling any kind of WP:SPORTSEVENT requirement. These types of AfDs shouldn't just be arbitrarily decided in each instance or it would just be entirely confusing what belongs and what doesn't even in the same subject. Agent00f (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I ask again can you demonstrate by quoting sources that a UFC championship fight, which occur on average once a month, is such an event that receives coverage demonstrating enduring notability, because if you can't it is still just your opinion. Mtking (edits) 08:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your requests makes no sense since a very clear reading of WP:SPORTSEVENT describes certain events as inherently notable. Those words of the rule are not simply an "opinion" unless all wiki rules are merely "opinions". Please note this in the relevant rule pages if that's the new interpretation, though you may want to discuss such a change on their respective talk page. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the part of WP:SPORTSEVENT you are appearing to rely on is "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final" so correct me if I am wrong by as the UFC is not a league this can not apply. So the question is relevant. Mtking (edits) 08:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your link carefully: "individuals to compete against "each other in a nonrandom order on a set schedule, usually called a "season," with the results of the individual competitions being used to name an overall champion". In the UFC, contestants do compete with each other, in a nonrandom order (for example, contestants win against opponents of their own level on the way to becoming title contender), the schedule are the events you're nominating, and the overall champion part is obvious.
It's really quite relevant to this page that an editor is delete warring against comments on this page in violation of wiki policy. This is the second time the editor's done this. Let's hope there's not a third. Agent00f (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] for the claim that the UFC is a League. Mtking (edits) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text quote above is directly from your own link/definition, and the UFC clearly meets all those plainly stated requirements. Perhaps you should choose a different definition. Agent00f (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MMANOT is currently under discussion. An administrator has been looking at a way of reconciling policy with keeping some MMA articles in a certain format. Pending the outcome of that bringing more and more examples to the fore by moving them towards deletion is not constructive. People have suggested that deleting so many MMA articles is going to cause irreparable harm. While the MMANOT essay is being worked out these deletions need to be put on hiatus. I encourage all participants on this page to move into a new phase of dispute resolution and I think mediation by MEDCAB is the best option. Moving from event to event is not settling this larger dispute. It is a waste of the WP resource of volunteer's time to keep disagreeing about what should happen in individual instances when the policy needs to be addressed on a more comprehensive level. These serial disagreements are not helpful because they bleed over into unhappiness in multiple spots on WP.Factseducado (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at this time. As an outsider to this topic area, I observed that AFDs are being nominated out-of-process because there is an open RFC and an open RFC/U discussing these same questions, and MEDCAB is indicated but has not been opened yet. Thus AFD is the wrong forum to hash this out. As Factseducado pointed out, I have been discussing with admin Dennis Brown a way to resolve the conflict, within policy, that may well make this AFD irrelevant. Further, the alleged disruption caused by nominating AFDs when there is not consensus that AFDs should proceed is something I was once blocked for. As to notability, my policy argument is that, whether or not this event is notable (haven't looked), it should be kept in the same way we routinely keep other nonnotable breakouts of summary articles. This is based on WP:N recognizing that notable lists like 2012 in UFC events are unlimited as to content, and WP:SUMMARY describing how unlimited list content can be broken out into articles like the present one; so, rather than merge to 2012 in UFC events, my comment is actually equivalent to merge to self. While this has not yielded consensus yet due to a hostile environment, it is certain that since some reasonable editors countenance it as within policy and that the current nom may be considered disruptive. Further, as an inclusionist, I find Agent00f's argument in favor of championship notability more persuasive than the opposite; I also find that Agent00f correctly indicated there is evidence that Mtking is an SPA, and that Mtking deleted this statement twice (here is the second case), even though it is generally very poor netiquette to delete the comments of others, and (as Mtking should know from following the RFC/U) such behavior is specifically deprecated in RFC/U since it should not be considered a reasonable outcome there by any stretch. (There is an exception for BLP, but noting an SPA factually in clear cases is not a contentious, removable observation; it's quite relevant.) Not watching this page. JJB 18:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep We have had articles for every UFC event dating back to UFC 1 for as long as I can remember. I've been browsing Wikipedia for several years and it has never been an issue before. Having separate articles for each UFC event makes it very clear which fighters fought, what the outcome was, what the payouts were, etc. without excessive clutter. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia that have less information in them then each of these UFC events. The UFC is a professional sports organization that is rapidly becoming the #2 most popular sport in the world. I think the promotion's events are certainly noteworthy enough to have their own articles. Courier00 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To add to what I said orignally, a world title in a top organization is being defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out double vote, but leaving rest of editor's comments. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all basically have the similar contents, same AfD arguments and users making them. Why isn't the procedure for multiple deletions being used to nominate, say, all UFC events? Doing them all one by one seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least doing them all at once we can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that this space is left in. Agent00f (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case the original nominator is unfamiliar with the scope of that multiple-delete nom, here is the list of all 212 UFC events. Please follow the instructions in the page linked above to include them all so we don't have to keep going through this month after month. The consistency between entries is profound. Either this coherent and cohesive set of resource all fail the test, or it passes. Agent00f (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all UFC event articles discuss non-notable events. Therefore, nominating them all in one batch would not be appropriate. Also, it appears to me that Mtking is limited AfD'd articles to those events in 2012 and are/could be appropriately discussed in 2012 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A random sample of the list above shows that they are completely fungible with respect to the argument in the AfD nom. Even if we disregard this, Mtking's clearly stated arguments in numerous places against events without "enduring value" (ie change the sport/world forever), aka inherent non-notability apply to pretty much all of them. Disregarding even that, some basic criteria/filter of invalid AfD targets should be specified instead of arbitrary selection. Agent00f (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annother reason why all UFC events aren't being nominated is because it's highly disruptive to nominate lots of articles for deletion in batch as the arguments for each get lost in the churn (hrm... where have I heard that before). Start first to build precedent by nominating a single article to test it's viability in the deletion process, reference the outcome from the first AfD in the additional AfDs, slowly building up the amount that get nominated in a single discussion. Unless it will be uncontested, limiting the nomination set to less than 5 or so is a good way to keep the discussion on topic and focused. If you want to learn more about AfDs and how they work check out WP:AFDEQ which gives all sorts of interesting information. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"highly disruptive". I believe it's plain to see that the handful of nominations that's brought this subject on wiki to its knees is already "highly disruptive" enough. A brief look over the history shows they all clearly relate to the exact same arguments over the exact same material format. Even if a broad nom has a few corner cases, we can remove them as need be and continue to be efficient and effective as first priority instead of whatever's been going on previously. Finally, there's no need to link me to pages that I've only just linked above. Agent00f (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly disruptive is relative. To you any nomination is highly disruptive, to others, a highly disruptive nomination would be 25 fraternity organizations. The reason why the exact same arguments are working over and over again is because the precedent is set and has been endorsed by the community and administrators. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply a matter of opinion that these nominations one by one have been highly disruptive over many past months. I'm simply arguing that because nominations are disruptive and content highly repetitively, let's just hold 1 instead of 200+ for the given promotion because 200>>1. IMO this reasoning is fairly easy to understand. Agent00f (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not all UFC events are non-notable, therefore nominating them all is incorrect. IMO, this reasoning is fairly easy to understand. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's easy to understand which is why I already replied to it just above. To reiterate, even if noming ALL is incorrect, can we get a list of the exceptions from the nominator so we know which ones are excluded from the 200+? Unless that list is very long, ~200 is still >> 1. Agent00f (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now without prejudice to re-nomination at a later date. Notability is the basis for this nomination; presently, the notability of martial arts subjects is under discussion. It would seem sensible to keep this article until some clarity can be gained on the subject of martial arts notability. If this were a controversial BLP then that would be different, but there is little prospect of the presence of the article damaging Wikipedia's reputation or rendering us liable to litigation. Besides, the inability to reach consensus in MA related AfD's might push the ratification of its notability guidelines along quite nicely. Just a thought... Pol430 talk to me 18:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so one senile no hopper with no friends or future decides that all ufc events should now be on one page! get a grip and let there be a new page for each event! the people want it! so let them have it! keep this page and every new event should be brought into line! the problem is with one person and their view on the rules! its not a general view of the community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.22.80 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mtking (edits) 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't similar to high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero05 07:21, 28 May 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_149:_Aldo_vs._Koch_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138752793"