Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellator 55


 * 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 Redirect. The majority of the keep !votes failed to reference our policies or guideline in any way; a few of them pointed to guidelines that actually support deletion. While some concerns were raised that this bundling was excessive, that concern is directly addressed at WP:BUNDLE. Furthermore, no one was able to provide anything other than routine coverage or non-reliable sources for any of the articles, thus I have no serious concern that the bundling will be unfairly lumping good articles with bad. As some editors have pointed out, allowing these articles would actually be a major exception to the way Wikipedia handles the coverage of sporting events. While there were more Delete !voters than !Redirect voters, as Black Kite points out, keeping these are redirects is a pretty standard means for series of this type. Some editors expressed a desire to merge some of the info into the Season articles; since the article history will be intact, involved editors will still be able to do that at their leisure (just be sure to add the to the redirect page for licensing purposes). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bellator 55

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Also included in this AfD: Bellator 1 - Bellator 54, and Bellator 56 - Bellator 59 (56 further articles - #4 is a redirect, and #8 does not exist)

These are weekly events of a borderline notable Championship (even the main article is mostly sourced to primary sources). Wikipedia has no less than fifty-seven of these articles which are effectively just routine sports coverage, violating WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, and given that none of them appear to have third-party sourcing, WP:V as well. I am including all the other 56 articles in this AfD; I picked this one for the main because it is the most recent to have actually taken place. I am aware that bundled AfDs are not popular, but this is an exception in that this is effectively the same article 57 times. Only the participants and commentary change. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bellator is currently the no. 2 recognized MMA organization in North America and seen on a major network. How can they "effectively" be the same article 57 times when -- as you even say -- they all contain different results.  Are you planning on next nominating the UFC events next?  Does it really keep you up day and night knowing that these measly articles inhabits just a few pages of Wikipedia?  Leave it be.  Udar55 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're effectively the same article 57 times as far as AfD goes because they all fail the same policies. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to me in the three policies you referenced where it is violation. I don't see the articles offending anything listed under WP:NOT; the same with WP:NOT; and I think I've properly argued that they have notability under WP:EVENT.  As an organization, Bellator has top ten MMA fighters in several weight classes.  I understand your argument, but do you really think something like the Coton Hill rail crash, which you started and has far less activity, also meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines?  I know this will now be a crusade for you as Wiki-types never back down, but why the sudden concern about Bellator taking up some Wikipedia pages? Udar55 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed."
 * WP:NOT - "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.'"
 * WP:EVENT - "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."
 * WP:SPORTSEVENT - I won't copy the whole thing in, but read it
 * And thank you for digging through my own creations; some of them were created a long time ago and probably do need improving. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep until nominator gives a reason for EACH event he/she wishes deleted, and also actually LISTS them. I am not particularly interested in a nomination that reads and 56 further articles. The exception mentioned would also apply to the Olympics (Only the participants and commentary change), and I don't see him/her nominating them. Th e S te ve  05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nomination, all 57 of the articles fail at least three of our policies, plus our notability guidelines. That's all an AfD nomination needs to state. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. I would like a link to EACH of these 57 so I can look for myself.  An Afd nomination should be for ONE article, not 57.  Such mass nominations show a lack of diligence to me.  Did you even bother to look at them all?  Have you thought of a better solution perhaps?  You could go to the talk pages and ask for a mass article with redirects, similar to the TV show per season synopses.   Th e S te ve   15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A mass redirect to List of Bellator events would be a possible option, I suppose. But you aren't going to get a link to each article, because the nomination statement is valid for all 57.  If it were not, I wouldn't have bundled them. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr ... Thesteve, does it take you as much as one second to type in any given "Bellator XX?" Implying that it's an onerous task to do so, or that failure to include point-and-click links somehow prevents you from looking at these articles, is more than a bit silly, don't you think?  Ravenswing  16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep The nominator is wrong to say that the Bellator pages are an "exception." There are LOTS of other pages that the same argument could be made about. There is no reason to think that this nominator wouldn't simply start new AfDs for those pages as well, claiming a precedent set by this discussion if the pages are not retained. It can't be both an exception, and also a precedent for deleting other pages that CURRENTLY exist. What's next? A single Afd for the nearly 200 UFC events? Consensus for many years has always been to retain event pages for top-tier mixed martial arts promotions, such as the UFC, Strikeforce, and Bellator. Bellator is the number two MMA promotion in the US and there are plenty of independent third-party sources to add to these articles. I and others have been working to nominate bottom-tier events to increase the average notability of these types of articles, which to me seems like a eminently more sensible approach. As I've said in previous discussions, I prefer to see AfDs being used like scissors to trim Wikipedia like a bonsai tree, rather than like a flame thrower to clear cut the entire forest. The question as I see it is whether Wikipedia should remain a primary web destination for people to read about top-tier martial arts events or not. If that is the goal, then the nominated pages fall comfortably above that threshold. I realize this broader debate is beyond the scope of this AfD, but it is one that the Wikipedia community (and MMAWikiproject) needs to have (not just two or three editors who follow martial arts AfDs). It seems like a good rule of thumb that the number of people "voting" in an AfD discussion should at least be reasonably close to the number of articles put up on the chopping block, so long as the content isn't libelous or a copyvio. I see no way that 57 editors are going to participate in this debate, which should give an admin pause. Regardless of the votes here, to me the clearer consensus is the dozens of editors who have created and maintained these pages, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have frequented them without feeling compelled to put them up for deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Without commenting on the notability of these articles, I've a few observations. First off, in point of fact, no part of Wikipedia's mission statement, policies or guidelines state that a goal of the site is to serve as a primary web destination for MMA fans to read about purported "top-tier" martial arts events. Articles are judged as to whether they meet verifiability and notability criteria, not as to whether MMA fans find them useful or whether Wikipedia serves as a convenient web host. Secondly, I question the blithe claim that "consensus for many years" has existed for the notability of event articles for this organization, which was only founded three years ago.  That being said, even stipulating that this is the "number two MMA promotion" (a claim that Strikeforce would dispute), it is a far, far distant second to the UFC, and its individual events gain no automatic notability. Finally, while they are disliked by many Keep proponents, bundled AfDs are not only permitted by the deletion policy, they are encouraged in such cases.  Osubuckeyeguy's "rule of thumb" that the number of editors participating in a deletion discussion ought to equate to the number of articles being nominated is a curious notion that forms no part of deletion policy, and any admin attempting to rule by it would provide a nice, juicy ground for overturning the decision at DRV.  Ravenswing  16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is all completely correct. Any closing admin is simply going to ignore such arguments, and they would not be doing their job if they did not do so.  These pages are not an "exception" - which is exactly why I have nominated them.  They simply fail multiple Wikipedia policies.  It doesn't matter if there is "consensus" amongst interested editors that these pages should be an exception if no-one can outline a policy based reason why that should be.  At the moment, no-one has done that. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to Ravenswing's comments: Just because it is not part of Wikipedia's mission statement, doesn't mean that the website cannot be a primary web destination for MMA fans to read about top-tier martial arts events. It can be certainly be both. It's not in Wikipedia's mission statement for it to be a primary destination for people to read about bands, companies, products, sports teams, or living people either. The pejorative quotes around the term "top-tier" doesn't recognize that this term means something specific according to wikiproject members. The org is considered top tier because world-ranked fighters compete in the organization, not because I decided it was. Your claim that it is not the number two org because Strikeforce is fails to account for the fact that the UFC and Strikeforce are currently owned by the same company. Bellator is the number two independent promotion. I also never argued that my rule of thumb was part of deletion policy, just common sense. It is the same common sense principle that leads closing admins to relist AfDs that have not received much attention from other editors. It is the same common sense principle behind informing the page creators that the page has been listed for deletion. It is the same common sense principle that causes people to list nominations on WikiProject Deletion sorting pages (as I have done here). The more people who weigh in, the better. From my perspective, it is a greater error to delete notable pages that don't receive much attention during debate, than to keep potentially non-notable pages because only a few editors weighed on and there was no clear consensus for removing the dozens of pages involved. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: You're right in that people can choose to come to Wikipedia to read about whatever they please, but the convenience of martial arts fans can form no part of AfD discussions; Wikipedia is not a web host.  As far as "top-tier" goes, I'm certainly willing to accept any assessment submitted to WP:ATHLETE and approved by the consensus of editors looking such things over; I have, however, made no claims one way or another. As far as your "common sense principles" go, the Guide to deletion explicitly states that you should notify article creators and explicitly states that project pages should be notified, to "enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate."  Admin guidelines explicitly permit for the relisting of AfDs that haven't achieved consensus.  These are not in the same category as your "rule of thumb," which isn't recognized by anyone else as such.  Ravenswing  22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: As to that, the claim that consensus is in favor of these individual event articles is false. I see the following at WP:MMANOT, the notability essay for the applicable WikiProject: "Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". WP:N also says "notability is not temporary" and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability.""  Therefore, these articles stand and fall on the GNG, and meeting it hasn't been proven.  Ravenswing  17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it is true that the consensus at WP:MMA is that individual events at the second level of competition in a single country should have separate articles then I would suggest that that project needs more scrutiny from editors who are not martial arts fans, because that consensus would be way out of step with the way that we handle far more notable sports. I also see no problem with a mass nomination, as the arguments for keeping or deletion are the same for all of these articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability guideline page for MMA (WP:MMANOT) says "Individual events are not considered notable ...". The consensus has been that means MMA events are not automatically notable, regardless of organization, not that they can't be notable.  However, I don't believe any UFC article has ever been removed. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the MMA editors would do well to look at, for example WP:FOOTBALL. To take an example, English Premier League games are watched live by multiple millions of people around the world each week; but when people try to create articles on individual games, even ones that spawned massive amounts of press coverage worldwide, we end up with this - Articles for deletion/Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009). Black Kite (t) (c) 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I may be biased, since I had a hand in drafting WP:MMANOT, but I think the problem isn't with the criteria. It's in getting editors to follow them.  Every MMA fan seems to believe their favorite fighter/organization/event is notable and that the guidelines don't apply to them.  Trying to delete MMA articles tends to be a battle and it's easy to feel it's not worth the trouble.  See Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA for an unusually difficult example. Papaursa (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In Bellator news, they were recently purchased by Viacom. I'd argue that makes them even more notable. Udar55 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? Notability is not inherited.  Being owned by a corporation confers no notability.  Ravenswing  13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Future events might have more promotion, and thus more coverage - which might confer notability. But it does nothing for previous events. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. On point of procedure... 57 articles is a ridiculous number for an AFD. Any one of these events that actually does have some notability is going to get shuffled in with the other 50 or so that don't. And if someone were to attempt a rescue, trying to rescue 57 articles at once is not feasible. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with you, but this is an unusual case in that these articles are functionally identical - which is only to expected given that they are effectively a list of sports results. Thus, as regards rescue, if it could be shown that a few of the articles could to be fixed so that they don't fail WP:SPORTSEVENT, that would suggest that they all could. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll tell you what. Find a couple of these events which meet the GNG - multiple reliable, independent sources which discuss the event in question in "significant detail" - and I'll switch my vote to Keep All on the spot.  Speculation about what happens should any of the events prove notable would make more sense if that was at all a possibility.  Ravenswing  16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a Bellator thing, it's an AFD thing. The chances that any editor will find one article in this set that may be notable... well, those chances are minimal at best - due to the large number of articles. Whether or not there is in fact any such notability is irrelevant. There are few editors who are going to sift through 57 articles to find a nugget of possible notability - many will check the few articles linked above and handwave the whole thing. That's the point I was raising. The few I've spot-checked don't seem to be going anywhere, true, and you're probably right about the notability issue - but with so many articles it's real easy to miss something. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me suggest a different way of looking at these articles that is specific to Bellator events and not mixed martial events pages in general. Yes, Bellator is an organization that promotes mixed martial arts contests, but Bellator is also a television show that currently airs on MTV2 in the US. Bellator does not promote an event EVERY week - it only does so during television seasons, which are only a fraction of the weeks in the year. Instead of thinking of it as sport events like football, it is reasonable to think of it as reality programming. Since Bellator uses a tournament format, fighters make appearances across multiple weeks in the same season, just like the cast might do in a reality show. So, each event is like an episode. This isn't like college football where there are dozens of games being played on multiple television networks at the same time. I understand that WP:Otherstuffexists does not confer notability, but I don't see anyone going after each of the episodes linked to List of Seinfeld episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, etc. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because such episodes have huge amounts of third-party sourcing in reliable sources. In fact, some of the Simpsons episodes are Featured Articles.  Regardless, this is not a relevant analogy; these are sports events, not TV episodes. I'd point you towards my comment on football fixtures above.  Having said that, as I said, a redirect to the list article wouldn't be a major issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Black_Kite's assertion that the analogy provided above is not relevant, I see no evidence provided to suggest that its not. The nature of the show is mixed martial arts contests. How is that any different than singing contests, dancing contests, talent competitions, etc. that make up much of the other current reality programming? Even if we agree that the nature of the show is "sports" there are lots of sports television shows that have their own pages and associated articles. Again, I have read WP:Otherstuffexists, but I fail to see how Bellator events are different than Monday Night Football games or Friday Night Fights. If the sheer number of the pages is problematic, I would have no issue with seeing Bellator event pages merged, so that there is a single page for each season of the broadcasts. It would not be difficult at all to come up with references for each season that the Bellator program has aired. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have individual articles for each separate Monday Night Football or Friday Night Fights episode? If not, then that analogy doesn't work. Nobody is suggesting deletion of Bellator Fighting Championships, which is the equivalent of the articles that you linked. And we generally don't have articles about individual episodes of "singing contests, dancing contests, talent competitions, etc. that make up much of the other current reality programming". To suggest that, as a TV program, Bellator is anywhere close to being in the same league as Seinfeld or the Simpsons is plain ludicrous. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right Phil, it would be ludicrous. And yes, you are correct that there are no pages for each Monday Night football game. I was just trying to illustrate that sports television programing can be notable (that is, sporting events and sports programs are not the same thing), and that individual episodes of television programs can also be notable. That doesn't mean notability is a given in this case, but it does mean that there is another framework that could be useful to consider outside of WP:EVENT. This reframing suggests a way to merge rather than delete. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither do we have individual articles on episodes of singing/dancing/talent competitions, etc. For programmes such as American Idol, there is a single article for each series, not one per episode. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am comfortable with a single article for each series if the consensus is to not have one per episode. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those articles already exist - Bellator Fighting Championships: Season One etc. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Indeed they do. Then, I support merging relevant information and redirecting events to the corresponding season page. These pages do not currently report the championship fights that occurred during the season, just the tournament brackets. Since the whole point of the tournaments is that they determine champions or determine who will challenge the champions next, this information should be merged before any articles are deleted. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me.   Th e S te ve   21:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete all User Osubuckeyeguy brings up a good point, but I do think it falls under WP:Otherstuffexists. However, it was enough to make my vote a weak one.  As for Bellator's notability (commented on earlier in this discussion), the archived discussion on the MMA project talk page shows Bellator barely gained entry as a top tier event and was a distant fourth among U.S. promotions behind UFC, WEC, and Strikeforce.  I suspect that all of these pages are simply routine sports reporting, but I'm hesitant because I have to admit I didn't look at all 57. Astudent0 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration I've crossed out the "weak" in my vote. However, I do like Thesteve's idea of combining events into seasonal articles.  Osubuckeyeguy, I agree Bellator is notable, but that doesn't make its events so. Astudent0 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to the status of Bellator compared to other orgs, WEC and Strikeforce are both owned by the same company that owns the UFC. This was not always the case, but it is true today. The WEC is now defunct and there is good reason to suspect that Strikeforce will be too by next year when the contract with Showtime expires. Bellator on the other hand...it was literally announced today that Bellator was just purchased by Viacom and will air episodes on SpikeTV starting in 2013. This makes it the only organization with fighters ranked top-ten in the world that has a television contract and conglomerate ownership in the United States outside of the UFC (which is still privately owned, but partnered with FOX Sports). Its #2 status is pretty clear at this point - If they are not #2, then I would have no idea who is. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am uncomfortable with episode level detail articles unless they can be sourced using third party WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Number two televised MMA promotion in the country. If there's going to be an article for each UFC event, there's no reason to not be one for each Bellator event. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.225.171.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep At least some of the 57 articles pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Trying to show sources for all 57 is not a feasible tasks for the moment so I'll do some spot checks:
 * Bellator 55 sources: USA Today, MMA Junkie 1, MMA Junkie 2, MMA Junkie 3 (and there is a lot more coverate at MMA Junkie), Sherdog (and more)
 * Bellator 36 sources: Yahoo Sports (there was another article at Yahoo Sports showing on Google, but it's a dead link at the moment), MMA Junkie (plus more at MMA Junkie), Bleacher Report (and additional possible sources)
 * Bellator 10 (or Bellator X) sources: Corpus Christi Caller, MMA Mania, USA Today (admittedly it's a video) So in a few minutes time with each of the three article I found some sources, given more time additional sources could probably be revealed. Again, IMO, passes WP:GNG.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those sources are either primary sources, or routine sports reports The USA today video is from Bellator's own website.  As I said above, on that basis we could write an article on every single professional football match ever. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC) --
 * I believe you are arguing is good faith Black Kite, but I believe your analogy towards football is incorrect. Because of the effect the results of each event have on the world of MMA each Bellator event has the notability of I'd say at least a college football bowl game. Would you argue that those don't deserve their own articles? 71.57.54.169 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have guidelines for that - WP:SPORTSEVENT, but even more, these don't even have in-depth third-party sourcing. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * USA Today, Yahoo Sports, the Corpus Christi Caller, the Bleacher Report, MMA Mania, MMA Junkie, and Sherdog are not primary sources. All of them have their own reporters separate from Bellator.  Therefore, it shows that there is coverage from sources independent of Bellator.  The fact I was able to find such coverage in a short period of time highly suggests there is much more coverage out there which is also shown by simple Google searches.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all - nothing has been presented that the articles dont fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. 92.28.13.191 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — 92.28.13.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - This is the second most important MMA promotion in North America if not the world. I don't really like Black Kite's argument that "this is effectively the same article 57 times. Only the participants and commentary change."  Couldn't the same be said about every Super Bowl and World Cup?  And common sense dictates that those articles shouldn't be deleted.71.57.54.169 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — 71.57.54.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That is a very strange idea of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the same couldn't be said of those - see WP:SPORTSEVENT, which I've quoted at least twice already. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all per the comments that I have made above. I see no evidence that individual screenings of this sporting event/TV entertainment program are any more notable than, say, individual Football League Championship matches, each of which has many more reports in national newspapers than have been presented for any of these articles. And please don't quote WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST at me unless you can explain why MMA events should have a far lower standard of notability than events in much more notable sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As per WP:MMA and WP:MMANOT. It has been the consensus to have all notable MMA events on wikipedia for several years now. I fail to be convinced why (arguably) the world's number two promotion should be excluded now, especially when each event is notable and well documented in the mixed martial arts community. Yes, some articles use only the primary source, however reliable secondary sources can easily be found (and perhaps the focus should be on adding these rather then deleting so many unique pages?). I present the following Inclusionists arguments:
 * Deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia.
 * Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
 * Article additions and expansions, and allowing time for them to occur, is highly superior to simply deleting articles.
 * It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content.
 * Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the total information of Wikipedia.
 * It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship.
 * Deleting an article on the basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), but also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems.
 * Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is disproven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion.
 * Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive.

(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC))
 * So are you actually going to answer any of the issues raised in the nomination statement? (Failure of WP:NOT, WP:SPORTSEVENT etc?.) Just stating that something is notable doesn't make it so (WP:JNN), and indeed WP:MMANOT which you mention suggests they actually aren't.  Black Kite (t)   09:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave my arguments why these articles should be kept. As I mentioned, its pretty well known that anyone can find multiple reasons to delete almost any article on wikipedia.(Justinsane15 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Except that you didn't refute any part of the nomination statement, and the second part of your sentence is clearly ridiculous. Black Kite (t)   12:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Black Kite on this one - While you clearly feel strongly about this issue, none of the points you raise have anything to do with this article. There are many editors who have issues with how we debate deletion on this project - and the place to discuss those issues is at the Village Pump, WT:AFD, or elsewhere. If you can show that some of these specific events are notable, and that there are sources to prove it, then a case could be made that the entire set is in some way notable. It might at least buy you some time. But speeches like this seem like a filibuster, and that helps the cause not at all. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I'm leaning pretty heavily towards merging these articles into Season articles. Each Bellator Season is more notable, with mentions in business and TV news about which network is showing them and how much money they're making, and of course the purchase by Viacom.  Bellator is already structured like a TV series, and they divide the tournaments into seasons that correspond with the TV network season.  The only one that seemed slightly non-routine was Bellator 56, which broke some viewing numbers.    Th e S te ve   19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it broke viewing records when it hasn't happened yet. How does this differ from the Bellator Fighting Championship Season articles that already exist?  Or are you talking about making those articles larger (or perhaps redirecting the individual event articles to the appropriate season)? Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I meant Bellator 52 - here and here. And yes, Papaursa, I'm talking about making those articles larger and redirecting the individual events...   Th e S te ve   21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually think that would be a perfectly correct way to go, treating the articles in the same way as we do other media events. Black Kite (t)   22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep WP:SPORTSEVENT deals with indiviual games or series- each bellator EVENT is a seperate and distinct EVENT. — 216.249.61.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, hence why WP:SPORTSEVENT applies. Black Kite (t)   12:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all None of the events I checked (I'll admit I didn't look at every one) seem to pass WP:EVENT. They all seem to be just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these meet the notability criteria to have their own article, but combining them into the existing Bellator Season articles as Thesteve suggests seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all per WP:EVENT and WP:V. These articles include championship fights from televised events covered in mainstream media sources.  There is no actual reason why we should not cover sourced information that is relevant to a segment of a readership.  Like seriously, what's it to ya?  Gosh! — WR Reader (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You do realise that WP:EVENT suggests these are not notable, don't you? Black Kite (t)   16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Im on the fence as far as keep and delete. I don't think we need an article for every single event (maybe a list) but I do think that a consolidated article would be appropriate. The content of the individual articles could be consolidated and I think a better article would be the result. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think (discounting the SPA votes) that there is some sort of consensus developing that the series articles (which already exist) are the best place to merge these articles to. Black Kite (t)   20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all, because the nominator apparently has his/her holidays confused. It is Halloween, not April’s Fools Day and yeah, nominating fifty-seven articles that vary dramatically in importance would indeed be foolish.  So, just as I don’t know much about menstruation, other than that it grosses me out, I am going to assume the nominator is just ignorant of mixed martial arts, because anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the subjects knows that many of these are relevant events.  The difference is I am not going to go about trying to delete all articles on women’s crap, because I actually do like and find interesting some women and kudos to Bellator for being one of the few mainstream promotions to feature a women’s championship.  For example, the first event held by a major promotion is notable by any logical standard.  But we have events with title fights aired on MTV2 lumped together with non-title events aired on FSN in this bundle.  No, these are not carbon copy events. Saying so is either ignorant or dishonest.  But anywho, yeah, keep per the obvious consensus to do so among series editors.  And come on already, this effort to try to mass get rid of content a handful of self-appointed fun police officers either know nothing of or care little about is ridiculous already.  Deleting sourced content that is obviously historical knowledge that a clear segment of our readership finds important does not actually benefit anyone.  By contrast doing so just diminishes the overall value and usefulness of this site.  I am getting sick and tired of coming here looking for information that a handful of random electronic book burners don’t like or know about.  First, Marcus Bachmann and now I want to find out about Saturday’s results and I find this farce.  Wow!  I swear it is like some are doing to this site what those Libyans did to Muammar Gadhafi.  You know which part I am talking about!  Peace!  --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oh look, another one. Black Kite (t)   15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant to whom? Relevant to MMA fans?  So what?  We're not a blogging or event listing service for MMA organizations.  Any !votes have to use arguments appealing to Wikipedia policy, not to personal, business, organizational, or other, desires.  N o f o rmation  Talk  02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:SPORTSEVENT. We have articles about seasons and championships, not individual weekly matches. The arguments against bundling the nominations appear to have no basis in policy or guidelines. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and the various listed policies. This is an easy decision from a policy standpoint even if it doesn't resonate with users who would like to keep based on non-policy arguments or arguments based on a misunderstanding of policy. A user above says "I know this will now be a crusade for you as Wiki-types," which I take to mean "people familiar with Wikipedia policy."   N o f o rmation  Talk  02:19, 1 November 2011 (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.