Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 November 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to 2012 in UFC events. The vast majority of keep votes either have no basis in policy, or mention policy but apply it in a nonsensical way. The argument that the only available sources represent routine coverage has not been adequately refuted. The result of this AfD doesn't prevent Wikipedia from containing information about this event, it simply means that there shouldn't be a separate article for it. The page history is still available, so anyone may grab content from old revisions in order to merge it elsewhere, if desired. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. This event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fucking stupid? Why haven't you nominated BAMMA 7 or, hell, Piloswine for deletion? I disagree with all of your points and so will everyone else. 78.52.240.79 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. (WP:EFFECT, WP:DIVERSE, WP:EVENT, etc) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is already covered in 2012 in UFC events and there is nothing to show this meets WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE, but the content already exists at 2012 UFC event page. Astudent0 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mtking and TreyGeek are some sort of wikipedia power trip trying to ruin the collection of UFC articles and events. They created the stupid 2012 in UFC events articles and for some reason are trying to destroy the vastly preferred event structure. For those that say redirect to this pointless omnibus page citing content already existing, realize the content on the omnibus is largely incomplete and virtually unusable. You are all failing wikipedia. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should clearly remain for the following reasons:

It passes GNG. You cite four policies/guidelines why this should be deleted as an exception. My response is as follows:

1) There is nothing in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER you cite to support deletion.

2) You cite WP:EVENT as areason for deletion, which in fact supports the existence of the article. The guideline specifically states that "...An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable...]]. It does not refer to the requirement of continued media coverage at all in this regard.

3) It does not fail, as you claim, WP:SPORTSEVENT because that only says "...Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to..." It says nothing about what's not notable, and is therefore not citable as grounds for this AfD.

4) WP:MMAEVENT does not apply because it is an essay.

Furthermore:

It easily passes WP:ROUTINE.
It also passes Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects because of "...very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..." - they do and it was.
It passes WP:GEOSCOPE: "...have significant impact over a wide region...", international in this case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENTISM. BTW, this source renders most event coverage from Fox Sports as failing independence henceforth. I reject User:Anna Frodesiak's assertions above. Entire article and all sources relates to routine sports results coverage. By the standards editor applies, virtually every professional sporting match meets WP:GNG, therefore each deserves an article, based on sports news as sources. Every NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB match would be deemed as passing GNG. That's unrealistic. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep don't let the vandal delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]
Redirect as per several of the comments above, and it would be a good idea to do this for the entire series. Keeping these is like having separate articles for every single Monday Night Football game. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ROUTINE and passing of Notability:Lasting Effects- the winner of the main event went on to fight for the UFC Light Heavyweight title. If anything it, along with numerous other events need to be expanded further.Teamsleep (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE OR REDIRECT Per Nom. Specifically WP:MMAEVENT under the following clause "Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event." This page and many like it also have WP:IRS issues and WP:COI issues. If the page as it stands is left most of the citations and the bulk of the material not covered in 2012 in UFC events would need to be removed.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep UFC events blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. the Main event and co-main event were No.1 contenender bouts, with long lasting effects on the light heavyweight and middleweight divisions, which were widely reported on both before and after the event. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world).Trok333 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the reasons listed by Anna Frodesiak --Pat ^talk 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I don't find any of the keep arguments convincing. 86.** IP (talk) 20:05, 24 April 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.