Talk:UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirecting to 2012 in UFC events#UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann[edit]

NO CONSENSUS
Merge/Redirect has run significantly longer than reasonable. Please make a new/clean proposal with the appropriate notifications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following request from admins to reduce the number of MMA events taken to afd, a Omnibus article for UFC events in 2012 has been created. As this article does not demonstrate any lasting significance of the event it therefore fails WP:MMAEVENT it has been redirected to 2012 in UFC events#UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann, if you would like to discuss this you are welcome to @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller. Mtking (edits) 07:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as no such consensus exists for these edits and caution to edit warring to impose them before discussion has ended. --131.123.122.38 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Note:blocked sock.[reply]
Nice try, Mtking. Per the dispute resolution discussion, if you want this page gone, you have to follow procedure and nominate it for deletion. Udar55 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strawman argument. AFD is not required to change to a redirect. As a matter of fact, you can't go to AFD if all you want is a redirect or merge, that would be against deletion policy. No one is trying to delete the information. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've undone my own reversion, not because I think it was incorrect, but I just don't think it helps for us to keep reverting each other. We need a larger discussion, and we all need to mellow out a bit and talk it through. I'm guessing we will have a larger merge discussion here very soon. If we can't settle it here, then we can go further with dispute resolution. No one wants to delete anything, only merge, so AFD isn't an option. I'm hoping we can all just discuss this as a part of a larger project, keeping in mind that we ALL have the same goal of improving MMA coverage, even if we have different ideas on how to do that. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThere is no denying MMA (especially UFC)'s notability. A mixed martial artist's win-loss record defines his or her career and has lasting implications for rankings and future fights, much moreso than in a seasonal sport where the standings sheet is wiped clean after each year. There is an unbroken historical continuity, and matches are made on the basis of hot and cold streaks, not in a prescheduled NHL or NBA manner. Thus, every fight card has a lasting historical significance to every fighter, as well as UFC itself. These fighters and this organization have Wikipedia-approved notability , so must the cards that shape them. Especially with mainstream coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that every fight has lasting significant to the fighters in that fight, in the same way every football game (of what ever code) has lasting significance to the players in that game, but what is at issue is; what is the lasting significance to the rest of the world to this event and how is that demonstrated with sources and not just assertions. Mtking (edits) 01:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same kind of significance. A hockey player can score ten points or zero, his team can win or lose, and he'll play his scheduled opponents next regardless. The results of a fight directly and immediately influence who fights who next, who loses their job and who becomes a star. Remember too, these are EVENTS featuring about 12 matches, not just one, like a ballgame. There is no requirement for any article subject to be considered significant to "the rest of the world", because nothing ever will be. These are internationally broadcast shows, promoted on mainstream TV in many languages and draw millions of dollars each. Notability is apparent, it does not require a source to explicitly state "UFC on FX is notable enough for Wikipedia". Anyway, I've cast my vote. Good luck to you two! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Notability demonstrated on the page itself: "UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann was the most successful "Fight Night" event in the company's history in terms of box office." 76.103.153.126 (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing indicates notability to meet WP:ROUTINE and WP:MMAEVENT requirements for a separate article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MMAEVENT is an essay, not a policy. It has no bearing on this conversation. Also, it meets notability requirements as it was "the most successful "Fight Night" event in the company's history".76.103.153.126 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just reverted an edit by newmanoconnor who blanked and redirected this page unilaterally. As this discussion is still on going, and since there has been no clear consensus established, blanking the page is premature. Especially considering that the user in question did not participate in this discussion on the talk page. In the future, discuss sweeping changes prior to implementing them. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based reasons have been advanced above and as per the outcome of :
and WP:BEFORE a redirect is preferable to a AfD. Mtking (edits) 20:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is flawed. None of the articles you listed are about events that have happened yet. This one has. The situation is not comparable and does not set precedent. As no consensus has been established on the talk page, a single editor who did not participate in this discussion should not unilaterally blank and redirect a page without prior discussion. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, this article does meet requirements as it was "the most successful "Fight Night" event in the company's history". You never addressed this point. Stop vandalizing this page and establish consensus prior to blanking. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, another reason this article meets notability requirements is that it is the first Flyweight fight ever in UFC history. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
then look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller. Mtking (edits) 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article you listed was not the most successful in UFC history, nor did it feature the first fight in a new weight class. Again, your analogy is flawed. This event you are trying to blank does meet notability requirements that others might not. Kindly judge them on a case by case basis, not all UFC events are created equally. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From USA Today: "History will be made in Australia as the Ultimate Fighting Championship this weekend debuts the 125-pound weight division and four men take the first step toward claiming the promotion's newly minted flyweight title." http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mma/story/2012-02-29/UFC-flyweight-tournament/53308474/1 Notable enough? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Routine pre-event hype, no indication that the first event a new class of fight is introduced is notable. Mtking (edits) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"History being made" by a reputable source is not notable? How often do new weight classes get introduced? It has happened only 3 times since the introduction of the unified rules over a decade ago. Stop vandalizing this page without prior consensus, or get admin approval. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second, you never addressed the point about this being the most successful fight night event in history. Again, stop vandalizing this page before consensus has been established. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everybody Stop Revert Warring[edit]

Non-negotiable, End of story! I note a few issues

  1. The merge discussion is still open since the beginning of April. Either the merge is appropriate or it is not. I'm not going to make any judgement calls about if it should, however at this time I'm not seeing a clear policy based consensus either way.
    1. I would have cut the merge discussion off at the 23rd of April if it were up to me as that's just plenty long enough.
  2. Newman made the first action by redirecting, 76 IP reversed the decision, Mtking reversed the 76 IP. The fault is in Mtking's action as there was a Bold action by Newman, a revert by 76 IP. At that point there should have been a fresh discussion about the viability of this individual event article.
  3. 76 IP, your reverting Mtking's revert of you is also out of line as you are now in contravention of a very thin consensus of 2 editors.
  4. It is my understanding that if you want something merged you don't go to AfD. You propose a merge and list policy based reasons for why it should be merged

What I would like to see:

  1. The early April merge proposal closed.
  2. A clean merge proposal laying out in a bulleted list the policy based reasons for merging
    1. Included in this is a subsection for an opposition to make their case
  3. A support/oppose tally section with limited commentary so as to make the rendering of the consensus easier to read.
  4. Listing the proposed merge at the appropriate locations (MMA article alerts, MMA Project talk page, editors who have worked on similar pages)
  5. Since the merge is contraversial, a listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers so as to bring in outside editors to help get a grasp on the issue.

Sorry for the TL:DR posting, but I was asked to weigh in on the situation. Hasteur (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing to merge, the destination article has it all already, there is no WP procedure to propose a redirect, the only thing that exists is to nominate for deletion an article that fails WP:NOT. I don't agree with the statement that my action was at issue, I do not subsribe at all to the essay WP:BRD as it is far to often used (like in this case) to preserve a favored version of an article that does not meet WP policy or guidelines, have a read of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" or Wikipedia:BRD misuse which explain the issues. Mtking (edits) 05:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see a consensus established currently for a merge/redirect, therefore if it has been merged (which I see that the obligatory copied templates are missing) it really needs to be established first. I do consider BRD one of the core policies so just outright dismissing the consensus model by ignoring it really sticks in my jaw. Hasteur (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hasteur, I don't agree with your view on MMA articles in general, but I agree 100% with your proposal. I don't think this particular page should be redirected, but if a consensus can be established I'll resign to that fact. I tried playing by the book and referred Mtking to the talk page to establish consensus first. He doesn't seem to agree with this approach, but I appreciate you taking the time to step in. I stand by your proposal whatever the outcome. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) WP:BRD is an essay, not even a guideline, an recent attempt at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to convert it to a policy was opposed. I am not opposing consensus just the BRD model of how one arrives at it, there is no policy based reasons for this article to exist, there is no demonstrated enduring notability so those seeking to retain the stand alone should demonstrate that. Mtking (edits) 05:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mtking, I already established notability and meets requirements. 1. First flyweight fight in UFC history. 2. Most successful fight night event in UFC history. You disagree. Either way, you are not the sole arbiter of this. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't established anything other than the fact that a single article describes the event that way. notability is not guaranteed by any single source. this has only routine, no continuing coverage, no other mainstream sports coverage, etc. Consensus is not established by any one editor, or even necessarily on this page. there is consensus as to what meets WP:GNG and even WP:MMANOT, from a few recent uninvolved admins even. again consensus is not a vote.Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my post below. Many reliable sources talk about this event, beyond routine coverage. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

This event fails WP:NOT as it does not have enduring notability as demonstrated by reliable sources; what sources there are cover the event in a routine manner and fail to show persistence of coverage as detailed in event notability guidelines. The argument that it deserves an article because it was the first UFC event with a flyweight fight or because it made UFC more money than any events before are likewise not supported by sources outside the event newscycle. As an alternative to AfD I propose a redirect to 2012 in UFC events seven days from today unless it can be made policy compliant.

  • Support as proposer. Mtking (edits) 05:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fails WP:GNG, I have tried to find sources to support WP:Continuingcoverage, or even multiple WP:IRs that demonstrate, Lasting effect and impact.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: In short, this event meets requirements for being: 1. Record setting attendance numbers. 2. First flyweight fight in UFC history. 3. Ongoing controversy regarding how the McCall-Johnson fight ended. This event meets requirements for reliable sources, general notability, and enduring impact. To avoid cluttering up this tally, I’ll provide links for each of my claims in a separate post below. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources covering the event:
History making event:
Record setting event:
Controversial outcome & ongoing legacy:
Still talking about the event long after:
I apologize for the lengthy response, but I fear my comments will be dismissed if I don’t provide a large number of sources. In conclusion, if an event that was covered by multiple reliable news and sports outlets, set a record, debuts an entire new weight class, and ended in controversy is not enough to meet requirements, no sporting event in any sport ever should be allowed their own article since none live up to the unreasonably high demands put forth. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain why these don't demonstrate enduring notability :
  • The first five ref's are nothing other than pure routine coverage any professional sports event gets, covered in the sports sections of each website.
  • The sixth ref (from an MMA website) is again the sort of routine coverage that this sort of website covers, it does not go into any real detail about what caused this event to be most successful "Fight Night" it is also according to promotion officials which shows that the website has not independently verified the claim and is just repeating what the promoters claim and as such it can not be replied upon.
  • The next three do not demonstrate any "ongoing legacy" as they were published on the day of the event (check the time stamps). I also seem to recall that bleacherreport.com is not regarded by WP as a WP:RS.
  • Of the final three, the Bloodyelbow and MMAJunkie ones mention the event in one sentence only and do not address the subject in detail at all. The final one (blitzcorne) is, according to the very first line an "Official Press Release" and as such does not help in addressing notability.
So I hope you understand why none of these sources help demonstrate enduring notability of the event and why it still fails the WP:NOT policy. Mtking (edits) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try re-reading the links I provided, since you have missed quite a bit. You claim: "MMAJunkie ones mention the event in one sentence only and do not address the subject in detail at all.", while in reality this is what they say about it: "McCall and Johnson kicked off the UFC's inaugural four-man flyweight tournament this past month at UFC on FX 2 in Sydney. After a spirited bout, Johnson initially was named the split-decision winner. Officials then said the scorecards were added incorrectly and Johnson actually was a majority-decision winner. But later in the night at the event's post-fight press conference, Craig Waller, the executive director of the Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales, said he recorded a judge's score incorrectly (it should have been 10-8 instead of 10-9) and that the fight actually resulted in a majority draw via scores of 28-28, 29-29 and 29-28 (for Johnson). The UFC had planned for such a scenario and required McCall vs. Johnson (as well as Joseph Benavidez vs. Yasuhiro Urushitani) to have mandatory sudden-victory fourth rounds. However, the tabulation error was caught so late in the night that McCall and Johnson couldn't do the fourth round." One line? No detail at all? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UFC_on_FX:_Alves_vs._Kampmann&oldid=1205816037"