Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Burning 2004


 * 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. Courcelles 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

K-1 Burning 2004

 * – ( View AfD View log )

also nominating: another sprawling series of non notable results that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * K-1 VSN Cup 2004 Japan GP
 * K-1 Battle of Britain 2004
 * K-1 MAX Portugal 2004
 * K-1 World Grand Prix 2004 in Saitama
 * K-1 MAX Scotland 2004
 * K-1 Beast 2004 in Niigata
 * K-1 Battle of Anzacs 2004
 * Delete Only sources listed are primary, and insufficient coverage in third-party sources. I am just shocked there are this many articles.  Everytime I come onto AfD, I see about three or four new ones of these.  I did a quick search for K-1 Burning 2004:
 * This newspaper article, half about the event, half about how the servicemen going to the event were happy about seeing it. I'm genuinely surprised it exists, and it's actually a halfway decent source for the event.
 * This page (translated from Korean) appears to an interview with an individual fighter, where the the fighter's injuries during the fight are mentioned in relation to a question about what fight was the "most difficult and best."
 * All that said, there's only one non-primary source here, and it's just not going to cut it. If there are more independent sources that provide significant coverage (which I was unable to find), I'll consider changing my vote. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete These events are loaded with non-notable fighters and don't seem to be significant. The articles also lack good sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 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.