Talk:UFC 145

Notability?
To even consider deleting UFC events from Wikipedia goes against everything that wiki's stand for, and the "notability" of these events is something that people who don't follow the sport will never understand. The significance of these events isn't just for the fighters and their records (which each fighter's individual page links to) but to the locations, fighter payouts, methods of wins, fight poster, etc. Each event is also a timeline for how the attendance and live gate money continues to rise in a sport that's now covered by nearly every large media outlet. Wikipedia played a detrimental part in researching the past for new fans, and it should continue to be a place where fans can go to for reliable, quick facts. I don't know what MtKing's problem is with MMA, but it's his/her biased opinion and shouldn't end what is a huge presence in a multi-billion dollar industry. Grec530 (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Masterfully put. MtKing clearly has no grounds for his claims of lack of significance or any appreciate whatsoever of the sport. He's just a Wikipedia nerd who needs to focus his efforts elsewhere. Of course sports events aren't significant to those who don't appreciate the sport.Optravisprime (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grec530. I frequently rely on Wikipedia to look up past UFC/MMA events and compare records between fighters.  I'm completely opposed to removing MMA events from Wikipedia.Unicityd (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So we're seriously saying that a UFC event with a title fight in its most prestigious weight class is struggling to meet notability requirements, regardless of the fact that its information and citations are similar to all other events? There is some serious need for people to get lives here.

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Check.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optravisprime (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am saying exactly that, most newsworthy events such as this one do do not qualify for inclusion in WP. As this lacks any sources that demonstrate it will indeed have enduring historical significance the template should remain. Mt  king  (edits)  11:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As there are no seasons in MMA, like there are in sports like hockey or basketball, these MMA events are as notable as a season in any given team sport. Dominic (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely ridiculous. The UFC event pages have been fine for years, and now suddenly because you say so, they're not. Go get a life. 205.228.53.11 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Starting to think you are a boxing fan that wants to make MMA look bad by ruining the event pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.148.183 (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect". When has a mixed martial arts competition had historic significance?  This is not The Rumble in the Jungle, which had philatelic effects and is known by people who know nothing about boxing.  Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're questioning the notability of this event, you're basically suggesting we purge 95% of the mixed martial arts related content from Wikipedia, since a UFC event with a title fight is at least as notable as most events and more notable than all but a handful of fighters. But then, why stop there.  You could get rid of most of the basketball content, the football content, etc.  Yes, those sports are more popular, but even, say, the 2002 NBA Championship doesn't have any historical significance outside of basketball.  But it's significant within the context of basketball, and this event is significant within the context of mixed martial arts.  The nice thing about Wikipedia is it doesn't have a limited number of pages like a paper encyclopedia.  It can be an encyclopedia of mixed martial arts to MMA fans, an encyclopedia of basketball to basketball fans, an encyclopedia of comic books to comic book fans, whatever, with no limit.  And this is frequently what it is, and why it's so popular, stuffy sounding notability guidelines be damned.  If hundreds or thousands of people can reasonably be expected to go to wikipedia, type in UFC 145, and get a response, it's notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.168.101 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with people? A major sporting event that was covered by CNN ,ESPN, FOX , USA Today , Yahoo! Sports, lacks sources? Wow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior Dos Santos Almeida (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents, clearly these protests come from people who do not view UFC and MMA as legitimate sporting events. I call upon the neckbeard who has put this forward to rescind his comments otherwise I must insist all Superbowl articles be removed immediately. ScienceWick2011 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that UFC and MMA are not legitimate sporting events, what is at issue is that like most NFL, MLB, NBA, MLS or AFL (Aussie rules) games these events are not historically significant and they are not encyclopaedic, as demonstrated by the fact once the game or event is finished and the sports reports are written and published attention moves to the next one. If you take the time to look you will see that football games also get deleted for that very reason see : Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game. Mt king  (edits)  23:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A UFC championship fight isn't like your average NFL, MLB, NBA, MLS, or AFL game. It is for a championship. A UFC championship is to MMA as the Super Bowl is to American football. Scamrock (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia would be "historically insignificant", it's all a matter of who you're talking to. There are pages about even the most random video games, consumer reception, critial reviews, sales figures, etc. There are pages about practically every television show that made it in some somewhat major market, including many one-season wonders that disappear, never to be thought of again outside of a few hardcore fans. Can you really say that these are any more "historically significant" than these events (America's Next Top Model, for one)? The event pages allow fans of the sport to find out results, details of the fight (method and time of the win), who got what bonus, how well the event did for ratings/ticket sales/PPV sales, they provide an easy to navigate method for finding details on fighters, their other opponents, other organizations they've fought for. Yes, there are other sites that have similar information, but none have it in a format as organized, concise and easy to navigate as the WP entries. YOU may not think that anyone is interested in going back and looking at the information for previous events, but I could pretty much guarantee that there are more people doing that then there are looking at a majority of other WP entries. In the end, what good does deleting them do? I highly doubt these pages are a huge resource drain on the WP servers (and if they are, WP's got bigger issues than MMA event pages). It's not like having the event pages takes a spot away from some other, supposedly more "historically significant" piece of content. This isn't some private website, this is a publicly edited repository for information, who are you, exactly, to say what should or shouldn't be here, or what is "historically significant"? The appeal of Wikipedia is that you can find information on practically anything, WITHOUT having to sort through dozens of "fan pages" which have practically no useful information or are covered in so many ads it's near impossible to find relevant information. Take that away and this site has nothing, and there will only be you to blame. Remember this is not a traditional encyclopedia, it's content shouldn't be limited like one. Bubkusjones (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, these shouldn't be deleted but just redirect to (in this case) UFC_Year_Events#UFC145. So that people who are looking for UFC 145 can find the information they need and the articles are all kept in 1 place like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellator_Fighting_Championships:_Season_One. It doesn't make sense to go around deleting articles that have existed for years without making it simple to find the replacement.Flimflamx (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

12 fights cannot be compared to a single match in another sport. I see so much useful information on this page, which won't become irrelevant after the next event. Maybe even more information should be added to end what is already a weak argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.246.101 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've used Wikipedia to check results for fights that I'm not able to watch live. I find it very useful and I'm sure I'm not the only one that does so. It's helpful. Also gives me a convenient place to bounce around from fighter to fighter. I see that say Rich Franklin has a fight on said card, I can then click on his page and see some history on Franklin as a fighter or I can click on his opponent's page and see some history on them as a fighter. The event pages are helpful in my opinion, shouldn't be deleted.

Also, from the notability page itself "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." Go to websites like Bleacher Report, Yahoo Sports, ESPN and you'll see significant, non routine coverage about each event, the fighters taking part, and the news around it. They're notable by that standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.32.14 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There 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. This tag shall be removed, per talk page consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a policy based consensus has been arrived at for it's removal, there is no claim made to how this event is of historical significance nor is one made by any of the current sources. I don't intend to edit-war it's removal, but it's a shame as without the template non-mma fans won't look for those sources. If those sources are not added then this is going to end up being nominated for Deletion. Mt  king  (edits)  01:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've skimmed through the vast policy discussion on the MMA project page. Your name seems to pop up a lot there, along with another certain editor. More of an agenda-driven filibuster than an argument, in my unsourced opinion. Regardless of an all-encompassing policy agreement, the people on this particular article's talk page have outvoted you, so I am glad to hear you will not re-add the tag. If you feel like nominating any of the event pages for deletion, you have that right. But I'm sure you could find a better way to waste your time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you InedibleHulk. I don't know what Mtking's problem is, but I have to sadly say that this only solved this particular page. Just about every other MMA event page has been tagged and proposed for deletion. Mtking has been working hard on ruining the MMA section of WP and his flimsy excuses don't seem to stop. What about the other pages now? Please stop him from killing such treasure of knowledge and information. --PsychoticClown (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP does not use voting as it is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, I am happy to nominate this for deletion at any time, would rather give other editors a chance to find better sourcing so as to demonstrate the lasting significance of this event, but if the MMA fans don't want that help then let them cry all they want on their forums when WP deletes their |stats book. Mt  king  (edits)  02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, golly. What kind of sources would help us convince you that MMA events are notable? Dominic (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ones that go beyond the routine coverage of what is a newsworthy event but as it stands 90% of UFC events are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion and are thus not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Mt  king  (edits)  04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are news reports published for weeks or even months in the run-up to any single event, and news stories frequently refer to past UFC events in framing the important of upcoming events. In this way, a single MMA event is far more notable than any single sporting event in a 16, 82, or 162 game season of a major sport. Respectfully, I don't think you're very familiar with MMA or the way it's covered in the news. Dominic (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not true that they're only in sources around the time of the event; if you think that, you aren't reading very good MMA coverage. In the leadup to UFC 145 sites like bloodyelbow.com had breakdowns of Jones and Evans striking strengths and weaknesses that used examples going back at least as far as Evans win over Chuck Liddell in 2008.  On some occasions they've done a retrospective on a fighter's whole UFC career in the build up to a big fight of theirs; they did this for Brock Lesnar for example.  This is the point: UFC fighters fight only a few times a year, and so each fight they are in is a very significant milestone in their career -- far more significant than a single game for a basketball or baseball team.  And because each UFC event includes many fights, that means it is of great significance to a large number of the world's top fighters, not just in shaping the participants' careers in a lasting way but in setting up potential matches with other top fighters. -- 67.194.168.101 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

90% of UFC's events are notable enough for their own articles. I dont understand what the point of putting UFC events into one long article is. Portillo (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC) I will create backups of UFC events to repost if they are deleted.

Hey Mtking, ever saw this rule: Don%27t_be_a_fanatic? Now gtfo. 46.223.44.98 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd, the most recent UFC event had dozens of articles written about it alone. Wikipedia has, and WILL continue to be, a great source for mma fans to look up event info,fighter history, and upcoming fights. As someone who participates in MMA, I'm offended at the thought of fight cards getting deleted because of a "lack of notability". --Andrewlr (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This card contained a UFC Light Heavyweight World Championship fight, which meets the WP:SPORTSEVENT notoriety criteria. Also your continued harrassment and attempted deletion of all things MMA on wikipedia is in violation of Don%27t_be_a_fanatic. please stop your unjustifiable assult on MMA pages.Trok333 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012
While providing the source for the fight results, the result from sherdog.com are provided. I know they are the right results but I think providing source from ufc's official website would be more appropriate. The link is http://www.ufc.ca/event/UFC145/results

Junior Dos Santos Almeida (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. I will add that one since it doesn't get more official than that.  Thanks! Udar55 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw mention of Aussie Rules Football. I think all AFL results and pages should be deleted as they are not notable to anyone outside of Australia. ;-) JK. Sports by definition are notable/relevant only to fans of those sports.

Some references to help with writing prose.
http://m.mirror.co.uk/article?id=803102/ (cannot seem to get desktop link from this machine, my apologies if it doesn't redirect)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mma/post/2012-04-21/ufc-145-jones-evans-results/677832/1

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/21/sports/la-sp-sn-ufc-145-results-rashad-evans-jon-jones-20120420

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/results+Jones+beats+Rashad+Evans+grudge+match/6499704/story.html

These should help address concerns of WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)