Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Fight 38


 * 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 delete  Anon IP opinions discounted. bd2412 T 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jungle Fight 38

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-major event, not even counted on sherdog.com. Does now meet minimun notability requirements. Luchuslu (talk) 16:17, 1 May 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 May 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No claim to any significance, fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT. Mt  king  (edits)  21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Jungle Fight is the major promotion in Brazil and the event is counted on Sherdog.com 186.222.49.125 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply This particualr event, Jungle Fight 38, does not have a results page on Sherdog.com as of this moment, days after the fights took place. It is only mentioned on the forum page. It may be a major card in Brazil, but very few of its current fighters even meet the low standards for wiki pages. Luchuslu (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.113.206 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article with no prose or independent sources. The event is for a second tier MMA promotion with no indication of how it meets WP:ROUTINE or WP:EVENT.  The only source is a link to the organization's website for the results. Astudent0 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements, sports [results]. The article has no inline citations and the only attempt at a reference is a primary source which does not comply with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject".  Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:23, 5 May 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.