Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 143

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 Delete - As has been discussed below, the 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) (emphasis mine). 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. For those voters who appear to have confused consensus with vote-counting, please see this, which clearly states that consensus is achieved by balancing the weight of an argument rather than its existance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 143

(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, the article concentrates more on the gossip and speculation in the lead up to the event rather than the actual event it's self, there is no attempt to demonstrate any lasting significance and fails WP:PERSISTENCE as the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets. In the absence of enduring coverage as demonstrated by coverage after the initial news cycle this event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 21:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I use these event pages very often as a reference, and this one seems to be a pretty simple description based entry. Don't take it away! 68.44.104.37 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)notloggedinperson[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) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]

Note: is a blocked account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are now clearly seeing some of the events being very strong keeps and some are not currently as strong (UFC 149 for example) and what is happening is we are now cutting apart the single article events and supplementing them with the omnibus. This is so stupid. It's clearly ridiculous and not working. Kill the stupid omnibus and restore the single article events and all will be good and usable for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.241.231 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of wiki articles covering each UFC event is becoming ridiculous. There isn't a wiki article for every WWE event or football match ever played. I believe all these pages are basically spam article posing as legit articles to advertise the events. It isn't just the UFC either, they have WIKI articles for every event under Dream, Bellator and EVERY single MMA company in existence. Only notable events should get their own wiki page similar to as it's done for boxing events or WWE events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.97.48 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The straw arguments this guy is making could be made about most sporting events on this site.Fraggy1 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why an annual omnibus page for UFC events? Why not organize them by decade, or by champion, or by lunar cycle? A "2012 in UFC" page is a completely arbitrary sports page. MMA organizations have already split the sport into discrete units. There's no reason to create a new organizational system with its own internal logic apart from the sport. Dominic (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains mostly statistics (fight results, payouts and awards) and generally lacks "well sourced prose" as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT for notable events. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MtKing's arguments apply to just about every sporting event on Wikipedia. He's very clearly just someone who doesn't have any appreciation for the sport, so to him, no MMA event is notable. Optravisprime (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to venture and say that this is a notable event simply for the main-event fallout alone. I'm not opposed to an omnibus, but I believe an ominbus should be in collaboration with, not replacing, event pages. Teamsleep (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:SPORTSEVENT WP:MMAEVENT:

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.
There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISMThis article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't :have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single :Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct :place for this type of information and detail.I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and :sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that :passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.

Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and regarding the above, I think you need to substantiate an allegation like Votestacking or Conflict-of-Interest with some kind of evidence beyond saying "there are rumblings." I've seen neither here. Even if sock-puppets are being used by some (I would say it's statistically probable) there are still clearly more people who want to keep the MMA pages undestroyed. Additionally, you say know all that much about MMA so what makes you qualified to judge it? I don't know a damn thing about Manchester United beyond it being a football (soccer) club and wouldn't care if every season page was merged into an omnibus, but I'm not qualified to make the distinction of what makes individual seasons notable and it doesn't effect me. Additionally, I don't know of a single MMA fansite that is a general MMA site. I am serious. Fansites don't really exist that way. There are tons of news sites, databases of varying quality, with only Sherdog's database being truly indispensable but it and the wikipedia articles are excellent complements to each other. There are pieces of information I can get from one but not the other and finding something Wikipedia is generally faster. Also, your examples of Ali vs. Foreman or Tyson vs. Holyfield are ridiculous if that is your standard for "notable." You take the most famous boxing match ever and the most scandalous one from the last three decades as your two examples of what meets notability? Really? Let's look at a closer analogy: no one seems to have a problem listing major individual kickboxing events, a much smaller sport than MMA and a closer one both in the way it is promoted, in crossover audience, and one with much closer historical ties to MMA than boxing. No one seems to have a problem listing individual Curling championships either for that matter. The fact that UFC 143 will have an individual home-video release puts it in an additional category of entertainment as well. Do NFL games get that? An omnibus by year would be perfectly appropriate for promotions like Tachi Palace Fights, BAMMA, or KSW, but for the UFC it's stupid and this is a resource that people are absolutely screaming to keep. Clearly a lot of people find it a useful source of information, the purpose that Wikipedia was designed for. Beansy (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beansy , First let me address the sockpuppetry/votestacking/meatpuppetry I mentioned.

I am not an admin, nor checkuser, the only way I can provide evidence of sockpuppetry, is through diff's, and behavior. In this case behavior is the most leading factor, but There may actually be no socks on this page. They have been a documented problem in the past according to the public records on wikipedia which you can lookup yourself if you are inclined.
The WP:MEAT and Votestacking/Canvassing is apparent,some of it is just improper in my opinion (I.E Anna'd linking every UFC event on AfD) as these should be judged on an individual basis. As well as this blatant evidence :http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/4/23/2968208/some-goon-on-wikipedia-is-trying-to-get-all-of-the-ufc-event-pages
I doubt it's that nobody has a problem with listing individual events that aren't notable in kickboxing or other areas, but that they haven't caught attention as they are not so prolific in the number of non-notable pages
You misunderstand what I'm saying about Holyfield,Ali,etc. Maybe that's my fault. ALl this needs is some prose written about what makes this particular event notable. So let me explain it this way. What makes this event, notable enough that it has a significant and lasting widespread impact,and is covered by independent sources. Like if some unknown fighter beats the current world champ, or there is some epic drug scandal that has a lasting effect on the sport/coverage/rules(not just so an so wasn't on the card because they failed a drug test.
MMA sites are not reliable independant sources. It doesn't matter how thorogh they are, or how respected they are in the community. Now if they are one of the most reliable and respected and there is at least one independent outside source, I don't think anyone would have a problem with other sources being from MMA newsites/fansites,etc.
Not being familiar with the sport makes me inherently qualified. I am only biased to what is encyclopedic and what is in accordance with keeping wikipedia valuable as an Encyclopedia, not fan database for music,sports,etc. I am knowledgeable of sports and I know a bare minimum about MMA,Grappling,Kickboxing,Muy Thai, etc. I do not want to get rid of UFC pages that are notable enough to have an individual event page. Like I said, you provide the sources and I'll add it to the article and change my vote.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this and every other UFC event article are allegedly not notable, why would an omnibus article be? 145 x 0 = 0, yes? As it is, this is good. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of information from the individual pages is missing from the omnibus. An example is the salaries of fighters as reported by the Nevada Athletic Commission for UFC 143. That information is not listed on the omnibus, but is listed and referenced on the individual page. What good is the omnibus if it removes reported and verifiable information? --HatedOnMostly2000 (talk) 01:59, 24 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) 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "...Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group...". This does. International is the wide region. And, the event has a significant impact over the following groups:

Those who follow the events
Betting agencies
Contestants
People involved in the industry itself, such as promoters
Endorsement agencies
Advertisers
Media organizations ranging from newspapers to television
Competing MMA organization
Training schools and agencies
Professional fighter groups and camps
Professional fighter management agencies

This event likely has a significant impact on all of these groups. Many likey use these event articles as valuable resources for research. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If only the event met WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, and failed WP:ROUTINE. Eleven single purpose accounts who have commented in this procedure demonstrate that someone is trying to use this article and this procedure to promote and event or string of events. Nominator has been called a troll by an editor with 18 edits commenting below. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. All of these policies use terms like "probably" and "likely" for a reason. So we can consider all factors, such as other policies which it does pass. Besides, it does in fact pass most of those. Also, excuse me, but I don't quite understand your edit summary "...If you ignore the flooding the zone traditional to these promotional article procedures..." Are you saying the article is promotional?

Honestly, I just don't get it. You say that based on arguments by supporters of this article, it would follow that every single baseball game should have an article. But at the same time, we have your creations: Nabih's Inc. and Small Dog Electronics. With Nabih's Inc., you created it with "...creating new business stub for a legendary old business, will build as sources are uncovered...", and three days later, walked. That was 2 years ago.

A small Illinois electronics shop and a Vermont IT company? Each with three very weak refs, and no real indication of notability. Does this mean that every electronics shop in Illinois with 3 brief magazine mentions should have an article too?

This article you would like to delete on notability grounds has 15 good refs, is about an international event, passes many guidelines and policies, received 300,000 visits in a day, and still gets over 2,000 a day.

Nabih's Inc. peaked out at 19, and now gets one hit a day. Small Dog Electronics doesn't do much better. Now, you made those, so you must feel that they belong in the encyclopedia. Yet you feel that the event articles don't. Of course, in 30 years, half these companies with articles with be out of business or merged, and will just become an ocean of wikipollution, but that's another matter.

I know we're supposed to ignore how visited an article is, for some reason. But, serving the masses is supposed to carry some weight, right? I feel like common sense is being defied here and nobody notices. I'm having trouble reconciling this rather gross contradiction. Please explain. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept my comments directed to the subject at hand. A discussion of my two year-old edits and creations is way off topic, is a slippery slope, and borders on personal attack. If you'd like to have this discussion with me, I suggest you remove the personally directed comments and post them in my talk discussion. I will not discuss my unrelated edits here in this formal procedure. BusterD (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'This article isn't about anything notable. Just look at how many people have registered to object to its proposed deletion. Obviously, they're astroturfers, because no one cares about this article, since it's not about anything notable.' Your logic is circular. Your argument is specious. Seriously, this event was headlined by a championship fight. Are championships in MMA less notable than in Football or European Amateur Boxing? This discussion is becoming ridiculous. Dominic (talk) 14:16, 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. This also meets WP:SPORTSEVENT as the main event was a UFC Interim Welterweight World Championship bout. 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).I emplore those making decisions on this and the myriad of other MMA pages scheduled for deletion to note that this seems to be a crusade against MMA pages by a very small number of people, and there is no consensus on deletion. Trok333 (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep Mtking is clearly WP:TROLL at this point. When will it end?AugustWest1980 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the idea is ludicrous. As others have said, amalgamating information from all events into one page would mean a very long, cluttered, confusing and anarchical entry - that aside I feel each event requires its own page since It does not contravene any criterias cited and these events are big enough to warrant to their own entries. I don't think this sort of entry should be compared to the lack of entries for other sports. They have much simpler formats such as one time playing another set team with a simple resultant score. With MMA, you have a whole bunch of other issues surrounding the run up to the event and the actual event itself. Like boxing matches, with these sorts of events, the emphasis is on individuals and their performances, not teams of 12~15 people on each side. I think the issue here is more the fact that there are many more UFC matches than there are boxing matches for example. If you had a Tyson V Holyfield, or Pacquiao V someone or Mayweather v someone every month, you'd have seperate entries for each of those matches. It's just that boxing doesn't have as big a talent pool. Volatileacid (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think this article should be kept until we have a solid definition in WP:MMANOT of what a notable MMA event is. If anyone is interested in contributing to this discussion please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability --Pat ^talk 19:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a definition of what a notable MMA event is. It's called WP:MMANOT. Prose at Omnibus 2012 in UFC events for this is superior, well cited and communicates the points necessary. No need for a spin off. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142, which asks for clarification on WP:MMANOT events in order to create consistency. --Pat ^talk 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Putting all events into a single page would make for not only a large project but almost impossible to have a streamline ability to list each match and the stats contained with individual pages. This also means that there would be many new pages to list separately UFC on Fuel, UFC on Fox, UFC before the numbered events and so on and collapsing all those pages into a single page. Secondary to this, other pro-sports pages reach is smaller as this is for an international reader whereas the NFL example mentioned prior is generally relegated to US audiences. In addition, events are not as often as the example of say a MLB game and each outcome is important to an individual fighter. Each fighter fights every several months so while there may be several events over two months under a UFC banner, none feature the same fighter (as a team sport might play once a week or every day with the same players). Lastly, each fight has a different outcome (submission, knockout by kick, etc.) which would lead to a massive clutter for a single article. Just from the prior events in numbered list - there would need to be lists on a single page of about 800 fights without inclusion of upcoming and continuing events. No "one" team wins in a single event. Aside from major boxing fighters such as Paquiao or Mayweather, the popularity of other boxing events does not come on par internationally as UFC. It would be impossible to include all the well sourced statistics into a single page for each event. Seola1 (talk) 00:02, 26 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.