Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. Some MMA fans have clearly been frustrated that several articles on individual MMA events have been merged to this article. However, this is not the way to express that frustration or get your way. Deleting this article will not magically make the articles on individual events come back to life. This is clearly a pointy nomination with no basis in policy, and no chance at succeeding; and I refuse to allow it to become the next MMA drama magnet. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This page on a collection of notable UFC events fails the WP:COMMONSENSE policy. There is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate why this is better than the individual pages. The individual events can be more adequately covered on their own pages ScottMMA (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Firstly, I'll be honest that I do start here from a biased POV after previous experiences with the editors largely at the centre for the contreversial purging of MMA Wiki Articles in favour of what they do feel is a better way of presenting information which is appropiate for inclusion on Wiki. However, I do strongly feel that though well intentioned, the way that this shift has manifested appears both at first glance and at deeper reading to be a case of an editor under the impression that their opinion is of more importance and as such is to be accepted until editors present evidence to convince said editor otherwise, but only on terms as decided by this editor. In other words, a power user. Naturally, this has caused tension and heated arguments, but at it's core, it can be seen this change was well intentioned but just poorly executed while shutting out oppurtunity for other editors to contribute not only to the article in question but to the entire MMA portal with the mass purgings. For more details on this please see Mt  king  (edits)  and User:TreyGeek.
 * As such, I strongly support the deletion of this article and (in my biased opinion;) the temporary editing rights removal of Mt  king  (edits)  and User:TreyGeek until their proposed large scale changes have been properly discussed in a fair and open platform with all participants as equals. It is my belief that these two users have shown and will continue to pursue an aggressive implementation of their proposal, should such measures not be taken and as such may jeporadise any discussion on the changes which may occur. I strongly impore those in a position to decide upon course of action here to review the contribution logs of the aforementioned users as it is difficult to fully explain just how significant this issue is and how long this ongoing issue has been around. Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62;  (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete The UFC events are notable and have enough reliable sources for their own article. Having individual articles allows more content such as payouts, awards, attendance, gate takings, background and other information to be added, which is alot more useful for people who use Wikipedia to search for UFC events. Im sure each UFC event gets alot of traffic aswell. Portillo (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: It's mildly amusing that the MMA meatpuppets fight so hard to keep individual event articles, but are now rallying to shoot down the portmanteau articles more in accordance with Wikipedia policies and practices; that they are so upset about the alleged agendas of veteran editors, but unabashedly admit they come to Wikipedia with agendas of their own. As far as this AfD goes, of course, the nom has not advanced a valid reason for deletion under WP:Deletion policy, and the two Delete proponents above haven't even managed that much, confining their arguments to the perfidy of their opponents and the notability of individual MMA events.  As such, I am comfortable with terming this a bad faith nomination, as one intending to attack a position and individual editors rather than through any genuine belief in the non-notability of the subject.   Ravenswing   12:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - As much as I don't like posting a second comment on any AfD, after reading this response and feeling that words have been put in my mouth here I feel that I do need to clarify a few things. Firstly, I'm not an MMA meatpuppet. I don't even like MMA. What I do get passionate about is ethics, morals and trying to do my part to maintain equality between users, feel free to look through contributions if you still feel I am an individual with a vested interest in the MMA portal. Secondly, I did not come to wikipedia with an agenda against these two users, thank you very much. However, I have previously had my own personal experiences with these two users and seen many with similar dismissive approaches towards their input without really responding in a healthy and equal discussion through either disregarding their points with any loosely fitting policy or even in some cases, such as with WP:MMANOT, lobbying for the implementation of guidelines and policies with wording to back up arguments they have used to systematically undermine the edits by, opnions of and the characters themselves of anyone who has objected to their opinions. A major issue here, which I feel you might be missing, is not the content contained in this article, but rather the manner in which other articles which serve any similar role to this omnibus are being systematically undermined and eliminated despite great effort to satisfy the repeated points of notability or reliable sources being called into question. Further to this, editors themselves are being undermined and treated in a highly condescending manner, something I would be so bold enough to even label as being on some level, cyber-bullying, be it unintentional or otherwise. I said in my first comment, that I do believe this omnibus was created with good intention, I trust it is a good faith creation, however it is still disturbing to me to see many users being put down, ignored or that their opinions, objections and comments are in some form not as worth as much as another editor, through undermining and labelling, be it as trolls or as you so ellequently put, meatpuppets. I apologise for having to lay out my views on this issue so blazingly, I had hoped that in imporing editors to look through contributions themselves they may have seen it, and even if the conclusion drawn was not one in agreement with mine, that would be fine. However, to be again, cast to the side as nothing more than a "MMA Meatpuppet", is not something I will oblige to, as it strongly sits in opposition with the concept of wikipedia being a collaborative source of information from editors of whom hold equal value. I understand it may be upsetting to even consider the possibility that a long term editor may be on even a minor level subject to some sort of misconduct here or that it may trigger a long repeated response to anything suggesting of a personal attack and that it may just feel better to play the ostrich buried in the sand and pretend it's not happening, but often is the case that a dispute is not black and white and infact, even if an editor gives in to a negative emotion they feel in light of a percieved attack, this does not immediatly invalidate any potential point they may have. Thank you for your time and to try avoid further misinterpretation, I'll put what I had tried to state as my view above in a single line. That dialogue be opened on a fair and equal platform said discussion being overseen by an arbirator or administrator with no prior involvement, as a quasi-judicial role if you will. Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62;  (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep (edit conflict with Ravenswing's sensible comment) The content is encyclopedic and mostly referenced. There has been a lot of dispute here as to whether individual UFC events deserve articles, but this combined article is a good compromise. The reason for deletion doesn't make sense per Wikipedia policy. Summary articles are allowed even if the events have their own pages. Finally, it was AfDed previously less than a month ago, with the result "speedy keep", so nominating it again so quickly is an abuse of Wikipedia's process, possibly a case of WP:POINT or WP:REICHSTAG, almost certainly more to do with the debate over coverage of UFC than any concern about notability or article quality. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong Delete as per Portillo and ScottMMA. The individual pages for each UFC event has enough strength in their own right to remain on Wikipedia as they are already. Due to the fact that Mt  king  (edits)  and User:TreyGeek have semi locked the page, meaning pretty much only they can edit it which has came with more problems that the pages already does have such as frequent updating and lack of fresh opinions towards improving the page or being able to give a reasonable opposing opinion to their ideas, it may be for the best to either remove the semi lock off this page or temporarily have a topic ban on these two users so that if this page somehow survives this AfD then it will allows a much wider democracy towards improving this page so that it can only improve.

These users based their arguments on if an UFC event will have a 'lasting effect' in the world, as if this is somehow the core standard to any event of any genre to pass so they can get a Wikipedia page. They also say that if it was covered by MMA websites it don't count. Well if that is the case then why isn't events like Backlash (2004), Floyd Mayweather vs. Miguel Cotto, and Armageddon (1999), all of which are covered entirely by professional wrestling websites and boxing websites respectfully, removed yet? They also lack any real 'lasting effect' as they would say but yet, just because there are quite a few references from these single topic websites they are still here. Beside, I don't actually recall anywhere in WP:GNG that the references HAS to come from site independent from the subject the event is for. Matter of fact it doesn't event state how many references are needed to make a Wikipedia page pass any standards which I still cannot find. So I must ask these two users to answer me, not just for me but to other Wikipedia users including admins, about why they think that individual UFC events, how they see it, may not necessarily be covered outside of MMA websites and may have around 7-11 article references why they are poorly sourced, or not relevant yet combined with all the events for the UFC in the same year are somehow able to pass a AfD and remain here? 86.149.144.209 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep both the stand-alone event pages and the omnibus in the interests of completion/navigation/readability. Lasting significance is ultimately subjective for a long time. Surely the results of the 2011 Japanese Grand Prix would have lasting significance to those involved with motorsports or interested in Formula 1, but have little to no bearing to those who aren't interested. Does that mean Formula One solely needs an omnibus? No. You'll notice in particular that singular event pages are in conjunction with a stand alone article. Teamsleep (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and close AfD as per Ravenswing. Bad faith nomination from a WP:SPA. Nominator does not cite any policies to support deletion; WP:COMMONSENSE is an essay, not a policy. Article clearly passes WP:GNG and is well-sourced. As Colapeninsula suggests, the summary article can exist even if the individual events have their own pages. This is not the venue to debate Wikipedia's coverage of MMA, nor is this AfD the venue to discuss whether or not each and every event is notable enough to merit their own respective articles.  None but shining hours (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.