Talk:UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch

Merge to 2012 in UFC events
As an alternative to AfD where the outcome is most likey to be either delete or redirect to 2012 in UFC events, I am propose that this page should be turned into a redirect to 2012 in UFC events as this yet to happen event is unlikely to ever garner the post event coverage to pass WP:NOT's enduring notability test. Mt king  (edits)  01:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. It is worthy of a stand alone article per what Wikipedia is.  It already has sufficient coverage for inclusion on the ultimate paperless encyclopedia.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)  - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody


 * Oppose merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.75.138 (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most users not named MtKing are against the 2012 in UFC events page. It is full of out-of-date information. (example: page still lists Dominick Cruz will fight Urijah Faber for bantamweight championship, while main article for UFC 148 correctly references the announcement from 3 days ago that Dominick Cruz has withdrawn from the fight due to injury) The information is not presented in a clear and accessible manner. Editing of page is next to impossible due to numerous links, reference codes, chart indents. Event, date, venue, and announced bouts have been confirmed by president of UFC Dana White. Dana White and Dana White alone makes the decisions and announcements to major news providers regarding events and scheduled bouts. - Rissx (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose because if you merged this with the 2012 in UFC events page, you might as well merge the upcoming WWE PPVs with the 2012 in WWE events page or its equivalent. --204.38.102.3 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose because this is not fair to the MMA community. these pages are begin targated while the WWE pages are not, their pay-per-views mean less since they fllow a storyline, the MMA have a real life sense to it, thus we would need to eliminate both, or none, as i doubt the WWE pay-per-view pages follow the regulation cited for this page deletion or merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:ROUTINE and WP:MMAEVENT, there's nothing in the article to suggest notability for a stand-alone article. Replace this with a redirect to the omnibus and merge contents there. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. If you ignore the witchunt WP:WITCHHUNT from MTKing and 3 or 4 of his friends, you'll see that a myriad of different sources have been given that establish notability WP:NOTABLE. Not only are there websites dedicated to the sport that provide continuing coverage (check past events to verify this) but even the biggest sports news company, ESPN, covers the UFC events. They will do post fight coverage regardless of if a user is speculating that they are. Speculation should not be grounds for deletion WP:CRYSTAL nor should personal agenda. Wiki is not compulsory WP:CHOICE so simply not liking a page doesn't make it less notable as notability isn't purely based on popularity. These pages hurt nothing, violate no guidelines for Wiki and, until the recent personal agenda based witch hunt by MTking, were absolutely fine. This particular event will have a title fight and #1 contender fights, which support lasting notability as outlined in the inclusion criteria for notability of an event WP:EVENT. I suggest the people putting these up for deletion actually get accquainted with the AfD guidelines before incorrectly using them for their personal witch hunt.Mississippistfan (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Add to that the fact that this event meets all 4 guidelines established by Wiki for MMA notability WP:MMANOT and does not meet any of the 5 criteria for deletion. There is no reason to merge this into a large link farm as MTking is suggesting, that would violate WP:NO. So the choice is deletion or leave it the way it is and since it is direct opposition to the criteria for deletion I suggest these pages are left alone and the WP:WITCHHUNT please be stopped, by mods if necessary. I get tired of seeing pages like this getting vandalized because users simply don't like the sport. Mississippistfan (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Double Vote by same editor striked Hasteur (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge content does not strike me as particularly above the routine coverage. Return to Canada coverage can be merged to the UFC article (where it belongs). Coverage of who's on what fight cards isn't enough to raise the event above the level of routine coverage of a future event (It's not going to be until July). No objections to a properly discussed split once the event has occured or more coverage that raises it above the level of routine coverage. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Article meets notability requirements by being the first event being held in Alberta, Canada and by having a fight for the world  featherweight title on the card.76.103.153.126 (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we stop with the "2012 in UFC events page? It's impossible to read and sucks to view. Can you also make the tables different colors than faint red and light green? some of your users may be colorblind and can't tell the difference. Can we put the winners on one side (the left) and the loser on the otherside? or perhaps dark (like red, black or brown) background for the winner and light background for the loser (white or yellow) I came here to see the UFC on Fuel TV page and it's been "merged" or deleted because one person doesn't like it while everyone else wants it to maintain as a seperate article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rissx (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose 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) 02:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)