Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd 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. As per the 2nd nomination. Again, no policy-based rationale given for deletion; AFD is not the venue for this, as editors have been told before. This is simply more disruption - a number of editors seriously need to read WP:IDHT and WP:POINT. I think another trip to WP:ANI is needed here because I suspect the community's patience will not last a huge amount longer. Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe this article should be deleted as it is overly long and packs far too much information regarding far too many separate events into a single page. NerdNinja9 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close Nominator does not express a valid deletion rationale, instead relying on their beliefs as to why it should be deleted. The Length argument has already been debunked and AfD is not the way to get split outs of logical units. Hasteur (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You didnt have a valid reason to delete the articles either, you MtKing or anyone else. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment While the nom seems ill-formed, nominator is clearly acting out of frustration about 28 other ill-formed nominations yesterday. It would be nice if closer could recommend a content-based solution to the nominator, such as WP:MEDCAB. JJB 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said in a couple places, I consider a trip to MedCab too early. There has yet to be a single un-derailed, un-filibustered, un-disrupted RfC about how we should go about evaluating the individual events for stand alone worthiness or to merge it into a "collection set" as appropriate.  That the supporter group has switched their tactic from railing to keep the articles to railing to delete the articles. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteToo long and rushed; this article was rushed quickly by a mod with out consultation of anyone else. Using there mod powers they stated that this was the new standard where as no other companies (WWE, Affliction Entertainment) are subject to the same standard. If the mods would have talked with more Wiki users before rushing this thing out they could have reached a compromise to improve the UFC articles instead of deleting and merging to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.196 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Lets put this whole thing behind us. It is causing an unnecessary war and wasting each parties time. If we put this article behind us then we can concentrate on making the individual articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that by deleting this article there will be nothing on Wikipedia about UFC 143, UFC on Fox 4, UFC on Fox 5, UFC on Fuel TV 1, UFC on Fuel TV 2, UFC on Fuel TV 3, UFC on FX 1, UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman, and probably a few others? Deleting this article will not overturn the consensus from the previous AfD discussions. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If this page is deleted I myself will focus on making those articles better and up to wikipedia standards Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A valiant effort to be sure, however I can tell you this: having this article deleted will not automatically permit the individual articles recreation. Your best bet is to start an article (and by an article I mean one article at a time) in a sandbox within your userspace, get it up to snuff, request a third party review, and move it into the article space when appropriate.  If you can do this for all the articles within the omnibus that were deleted, then this page would become redundant.  Until such time, there is no reason to delete this page.  Or to put it another way, there is no reason to delete information based on the possibility that it may be created in another form.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think you get it Kelapstick, we dont want this article, and we will redo those articles, Paul, I will help you. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it, don't worry about that. I have been paying attention to the discussion since the beginning, and I know what the mysterious "we" wants. And believe me, I do appreciate what "you" want, and don't disagree with the principle. Ideally I would love to see every UFC article brought up to the standard that permits its inclusion within Wikipedia policy.  And you are free to userdraft UFC articles until they do and move them into the main space when they are ready.  However this article being deleted is not going to expedite that process.
 * Having said all that, Wikipedia does not provide articles in the format that the public requests, because everybody wants something different. They provide articles in the format that is agreed upon by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, and while you are part of the Wikipedia community, you are in the minority when it comes to the way these articles should be handled within the Wikipedia community.  So as I told Paul above, if you want to make a difference within the MMA articles on Wikipedia, improve them so that they meet the inclusion standard rather than trying to delete articles that you don't think should be here.  Don't fight fire with fire, fight fire with water, you will find it much more effective.  In case you don't get the analogy, don't fight deletion with deletion, fight deletion with article improvement.  Also note my observation/proposal at Talk:2012 in UFC events.  I welcome any rational discussion that anyone may wish to contribute.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have tried to reason with you, but you dont listen, you or MtKing. With that said I like your suggestion. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am sure that you will find that I am a very reasonable person. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is too long and fails many Wikipedia guidelines. It is also inaccurate and out of date. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Zeekfox made an excellent statement for its deletion here: 1. Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In what regard was that a good statement for it's deletion? That it is too big, or that it invites drama?  Neither of those are justification for deletion.  We do not delete articles because they are too big or too dramatic (if that were the case Barack Obama would have been deleted ages ago).  I believe it was a well thought rational statement with some excellent points, however it is not a valid deletion justification. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This page has clearly turned into a failed experiment.  We tried it and it just doesn't work.  It's incredibly long and virtually impossible to easily navigate or find any information that one is looking for.  The previous system of single event articles was by far not only more user friendly, but a much better kept up to date product.  The end goal of wikipedia is to deliver accurate, information to as many users as possible.  This being so, it is required that information be easy to obtain so the site appeals to the widest possible audience.  The omnibus article fails miserably at that.  While some people will cite a bunch of random and often changing WPs, they are missing the fact that it hurts the content and usability of wikipedia.  Readily available, easy to find, well sourced, extremely accurate information was significantly more prevalent in the single event article structure - this is undeniable.  The omnibus had its chance and it has proven to be a disaster.  Delete this article so we can repair the significant damage already done in its name.I remember halloween (talk) 02:59, 2 June 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.