Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the source that is not the promoters own site is a link to a live results service. I am not able to find any sources that are not primary news sources just reporting routine results, the type any and every sports event gets and that the NOTNEWSPAPER policy explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia".

Also nominating :


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

for the same reasons. Mt king  (edits)  08:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

*Speedy keep as nominator offers no pressing or legitimate reason for redlinking this article concerning a notable sports event with historic significance. --172.162.38.35 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.162.38.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked for Sock puppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep for the sake of common sense. Although it's a seemingly hopeless uphill battle against a ridiculous deletionist itch that Mtking has to scratch on any article he determines not worthy of Wikipedia. Luchuslu (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on not making an argument. You might want to try using guidelines to defend a position.  -- No  unique  names
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Meets GNG what more is there to discuss. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You should really read WP:GNG. This certainly doesn't meet that.  -- No  unique  names


 * Delete, possibly with salt. Fails GNG.   -- No  unique  names  16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't find any usable sources for this event to pass GNG. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  22:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, Quote from WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I see enough reliable, independant sources on K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles to feel that the topic meets the policy. If it is presumed to satisfy WP:GNG, the burden of proof is on the deletionists, not the contributors. K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16 needs a little more work, but has more inherant notability because it is part of the larger K-1 World Grand Prix, historically the most prestiguous kickboxing tournament in the world. Users should WP:BEBOLD and try to improve pages instead of nominating them for deletion on first sight. Luchuslu (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is never on the negative, that's logically impossible: you can't prove a negative. If the article passes GNG and there are enough reliable, independent sources as you say, the burden is on the affirmative to provide those sources. As it stands, of the five sources in the article, one is primary with little more than fighter pictures, three appear to be MMA blogs showing routine result coverage (and with no apparent editorial control), and the only source that could really be considered reliable, MMA Junkie, is also only providing routine coverage (ie. there is an event and these people are participating). There may be better sources than these out there, but unless they can be found and put in the article, I don't see a reason to keep it. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, the word "routine" isn't in WP:GNG. That's the argument that I'm making. As for reliable, the "blogs" you refer to are articles by three of the most respected combat sports sites on the web. If one primary source and four secondary ones isn't considered enough coverage, I don't know what could possibly keep the deletionists satisfied. The article isn't A-class, but it meets the bare minimum for a stand-alone article in my opinion and the opinion of WP:GNG. There is enough coverage, the coverage is from reliable sources and the sources are independent of K-1. That should be enough.Luchuslu (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but it is in WP:N(E) (see my comment below). Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples of routine news according to WP:N are "most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena." I'd argue the coverage of these events are more lasting and less routine than those examples. Luchuslu (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (see my "Merge" below) - I agree with the comment above by Luchuslu. Of course, being a tournament (all events related to this Grand Prix are connected), it passes WP:EFFECT. The reliability of the sources are fine to me. Poison Whiskey (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This event was a qualifying event for the qualifying event for the final event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Rather than reply to each, this is a reply to all those saying passes GNG (or other guideline or essay), please re-read the nomination, this is not about does the article pass the GNG, if you read of the whole of WP:Notability (which is the page WP:GNG redirects to) you will see that the second paragraph says "
 * A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not (my bold).
 * This nomination is based on the fact this article is excluded under WP:NOT policy and specifically "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed" and "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.", and in order to show that this sports event is worthy Encyclopedic note, those advocating for its retention need to show that it has received significant coverage of the event outside of routine reporting of event and its results in reliable and diverse sources, to date that has not been done. Mt  king  (edits)  23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So lets look at those two sentences you put in bold, which you admit are the main points of your argument. The first one "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed" is listed under the catagory WP:NOTDIR which specifically deals with issues that aren't even remotely related to MMA event articles. The examples given in the section include yellow pages, geneology and sales catalogs. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Secondly, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I'm assuming your issue falls under the News Report catagory. In that very paragraph, the first sentence says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." That link goes straight to Wikipedia's notability page, headed by WP:GNG which you don't seem to disagree with. In my opinion, both of your arguments fall short of convincing me that these pages aren't at least meeting the bare minimum for a standalone article by Wikipedia's standards. Luchuslu (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly the WP:NOTDIR exclusion is relevant, WP is seen by some fans of MMA/K1 as a directory of the results of all MMA/K1 events, policy is it is not. Secondly the key word you glossed over is "enduring", which means in this context more than just routine reporting. To demonstrate enduring notability you need to show that this event has received significant coverage outside of the routine reporting of its results in reliable and diverse sources. Mt  king  (edits)  05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As Mdtemp pointed out, this was a qualifying event for the qualifying event for the final event and it's hard to claim that makes the event significant. In addition, the only sources are either results or an announcement that the event will be taking place--hardly siginficant coverage.  That's especially true when WP:N(E) says "routine news coverage of such things as ... sports ... are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. ... sports scores ... should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches ... are probably not notable."  I do think that, with proper sourcing, an argument can be made that the final event, when it happens, is notable since it will determine the K-1 champion. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Merge - Can't we just merge all articles in one? since all these events (K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles, K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16, K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 Final in New York) are connected, we'll have the info of the entire Grand Prix, not just the finals. Poison Whiskey (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with an article on the entire tournament, but I don't think a simple merge is sufficient. The existing articles are essentially just fight results, so more prose is needed.  In addition, they include many bouts that have nothing to do with determining the K-1 champion (only 4 of the 15 bouts in LA were relevant) and there's nothing that says how the rest of the final 16 were chosen. Papaursa (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PROSE doesn't exclude articles that are more list-based from meeting WP:STAND guidelines, as long as they still meet the site's content policies. I feel my previous statement shows the page meets WP:Notability despite Mtking's disagreement. I would refer him to WP:NTEMP, as he seems to confusing the word "enduring" with "ongoing." However, I would be OK with a merge to single article titled something like "List of 2012 K-1 Events" as a way to resolve this matter. Unlike the UFC where such a page is overly cumbersome due to the number of events, K-1 has few enough events for that to be a reasonable compromise. Luchuslu (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what a list has to do with my comments. There's already a List of K-1 events that includes the events under discussion, as well as several not yet held.  I'm fine with the LA event and Final 16 events being listed there, but that has nothing to do with them having their own standalone article. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my previous comments. The argument by many people is that an article with just the results fails under WP:NOTDIR. I was pointing out that it's more similar to a list, which would pass WP:STAND under some circumstances, this being one of them in my opinion. Luchuslu (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not confused anything, nor am I ignoring WP:NTEMP re-read what I have posted above. What these two events lack is coverage outside the routine reporting of results and routine reporting of results does not demonstrate notability. Consider for example, every NFL game this weekend will get far more coverage than either of these in world wide mainstream media, yet none of them will be notable. Mt  king  (edits)  20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your earlier argument completely. What you fail to understand is that there is a significant difference between the arguments you're applying to these articles and what the policies imply. You missed one major point in WP:NOTDIR. "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., 'although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.'" (Bold added for effect). I would consider the qualifying event for the most prestiguous once-a-year kickboxing tournament in the world and the first round of said tournament would be considered both major and historically significant. Another key point from WP:Notability that you seem to glaze over, which I'll put in bold as well. 'Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.' The word "or" is important for obvious reasons. I would also disagree with your comparison to a week of NFL games. A page on Week 8 of the 2012 season clearly fails on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, but one on the NFL's 2012 postseason, like 2011–12 NFL playoffs, would meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Consider these tournamnets like the K-1s postseason. Once again, I am willing to compromise to a 2012 in K-1 Events page if that will end these seemingly neverending arguments. I don't like spending my weekends arguing about policies any more than you do. Luchuslu (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So then what is, and where are the sources that demonstrate, the "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" of this event ? Mt  king  (edits)  02:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can read up on the organization's history on their website's history section. Here's an article on Bloddy Elbow about the 2012 Grand Prix's cancellation and its impact, as well as significance, and here's an aticle about Alistair Overeem winning the 2010 Grand Prix and being considered the No. 1 fighter in the world, showing the organization has some of the best fighters in the world competing in it . That's just what I came up with in about five minutes. Also, I have a "2012 in K-1" article in my sandbox. Still trying to extend the olive branch if you'd like to compromise. Luchuslu (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as we all agreed years before to keep the Final 16 and the Final of the K-1 organisation (both heavyweight and MAX). It is very informative from my point of view. We have pages for every UFC events and can't have for the K-1 finals? Wake up, people! Keep the Final 16 (for MAX too), delete the K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles if you want. Vermount564 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you read WP:ATA, "it is useful" and "other articles exist" are not valid reasons to keep articles. Mt  king  (edits)  20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did "we all agreed years before to keep the Final 16"? For someone who's first edit was less than a month ago, that's quite a recall. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to point out that the only sources for the Final 16 article are two one line mentions that say the event will happen (one from K-1) and one that merely lists the results. Where is the significant independent non-routine coverage? Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then someone should WP:BEBOLD and add some like they did for the Los Angeles event. Luchuslu (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added some references on K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * None of these are significant coverage--they all just give the fight card or the results (or in the case of the Weekender "article" says how to buy tickets and to go to the K-1 website). There are hundreds, if not thousands, of newspapers that listed the schedule of today's NFL games and they'll all carry the results tomorrow (with far more details than any of these sites give) and yet none of those games are considered notable.  Just because an event was held in your favorite sport, doesn't make the event notable (as WP, not you, defines it). Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I vote keep - this was a broadcast event, and with all other broadcast sporting events, this acts as a very useful record of who fought, who won, etc., and could potentially be expanded upon later. Sgtkabuki (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If every televised sporting event was notable, we'd have thousands of baseball games each year! Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct, an article on Week 8 of the 2012 NFL season wouldn't pass WP:NOT. However, covering the 2011-12 NFL Playoffs does pass WP:NOT. These events would fall under the latter. And just because an event is held in a sport you don't care for isn't a basis for persistently attempting to delete the articles either. Luchuslu (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've missed several of my points. First, I said I was fine with a well sourced article on the entire tournament (like the NFL article you referenced), but explained why a simple merge wouldn't do.  Also notice that the NFL article had lots of prose.  Second, as a former fighter I've been a fan of kickboxing probably longer than you've been alive, but at this site I'm a WP editor and believe in adhering to its policies. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So if you are a former fighter and fan of kickboxing, how come almost every contribution you've ever made on Wikipedia have been aimed at tagging or arguing for the deletion of martial arts/MMA/kickboxing pages? Luchuslu (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple--I don't base my decisions on WP:ILIKEIT. Instead I look at things like the notability criteria and whether or not there is signficant coverage in independent sources.  If the article meets WP standards, I'll support keeping it--but I won't blindly support articles just because I'm of a fan.  To claim every K-1 and UFC event is notable is ridiculous and counter to WP:EVENT.  Tagging articles lets editors know that the article could use improving, so I'm not sure why you oppose my doing that--unless you prefer WP have poorly sourced articles on topics of questionable notability.  WP is not meant to be a repository for sports results.  For that there are the organizaional websites and/or sites like sherdog.  I think it's illustrative to consider that in the long, illustrious history of U.S. boxing going back into the 1800s, WP has 119 in the American boxer category.  Compare that to the 874 people listed in the American MMA fighter category for a sport that was created relatively recently.  The number of American boxers is matched by the number of MMA fighters listed just from California.  I have graciously answered your questioning my motives.  I would say your time would be better spent improving the articles instead of complaining about people who want to apply WP guidelines. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for questioning your motives, and I do agree that many MMA fighter pages are of non-notable fighters. I myself have nominated a few of them for deletion. By my point was that instead of tagging and nominating articles that pass WP:N simply because no one has gone through the effort of properly sourcing the articles, WP:BEBOLD and try to improve the article. The mindset that articles which aren't properly sourced but do pass WP:GNG and other Wiki guidelines should simply be deleted instead of improved baffles me. Luchuslu (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We've gotten away from the topic at hand, which is the notability of this article. I will say that I never nominate an article for deletion until I've done a search for sources and believe that there isn't enough to support notability.  Of course, others might look at the same sources and disagree with my assessment.  However, my track record shows that I am in the majority a large percentage of the time, so I must not be too far out of line.  If you want to continue this discussion, we should move it to my talk page. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT and fails WP:GNG since all sources are routine sports coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not address so-called routine coverage. WP:EVENT is debatable at best. Luchuslu (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Luchusu is correct about routine not being mentioned in WP:GNG, but the fact that WP:N and WP:EVENT are both WP notability guidelines makes me inclined to follow them. If you ignore WP:EVENT then you can essentially claim every major league game is notable since they have plenty of coverage, and I don't believe that. Papaursa (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Luchusu also needs to read the part of WP:N that says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." and since the WP:NOT policy says "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." passing the GNG is not relevant to this discussion, the question is are the sources available just "routine news reporting" then the article fails WP:NOT and should be deleted. If we look at the sources, the liverkick.com one is headed "Live results", the mmajunkie.com is also reporting on event announcements (leaving aside the question of is a website that has a rumours section a reliable one) the bloodyelbow.com source is again reporting on scheduling (again there has to be questions about a "media stack focused on empowering rapid publishing" in relation to what WP would consider as having a reputation for fact checking.) the prommanow.com source is also just a results page, and finally we can ignore the one from the promoters own site.  Mt  king  (edits)  06:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I have read WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:EVENT. Second, I feel the definition of "routine news reporting" is very subjective. I feel there should be some clarifications to what is considered routine in WP:MMANOT, as that would give wiki users a better idea as to what events are worthy of standalone pages. All the examples of routine coverage given in the previous policies (in my opinion) are less notable than what many pages that have been put up for AfD entail. Here is a composite list of the examples given: most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," viral phenomena, announcements, tabloid journalism, wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, film premieres, and press conferences I can see what Mtking and Papaursa mean with their comparison to sports scores for NFL games as an example, but they fail to recognize that a major, prestiguous tournment from a high-level kickboxing organization are inherantly more notable than a regular season game. Outside of the sports scores example, I don't see any examples that compare to this article. I also disagree with Mtking's analysis of the article's sources. As someone who works in journalism (not as a blogger, as a reporter for a major newspaper), I feel that the pages meet the minimus standards for reputable. Remember that most sports sites have things like "rumor" sections to keep up with the social media world. It comes down to a simple difference of opinion between what two groups of wiki users see as "routine." And once again, I have an omnibus article for K-1 events in 2012 made up in my sandbox if you're willing to compromise. I'm willing to do so if it will end this constant bickering between the two sides. Luchuslu (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, the sources used will routinely cover all MMA events, that is there job in the same way that La Gazzetta dello Sport covers sport in Italy, as for the omnibus artical, you don't need my permission, be bold and do it, when this page gets deleted then you can create a re-direct if you want. Mt  king  (edits)  00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The event held an attendance of 7,000 people, more than most sporting events that have articles on Wikipedia, and the card was scattered with kickboxing and even mixed martial arts notables. The latter brings me to my next question, i noticed on events like this (Over the Limit (2012) and Bound for Glory (2012)) both hold similar attendance records and havent been nominated for deletion. Ive read the guidelines on Wikipedia, im trying to argue that this K-1 event with that attendance record and being broadcasted on most major cable sports networks should hold no argument as far as notable enough is concerned. Just a thought. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains virtually no well sourced prose and is largely just a list of stats in the form of fight results.  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 *Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. WP:SPORTSEVENT deems the final series to determine the top champion of a top league to be inherently notable. As K-1 is the top league in kickboxing and the K-1 World GP Final 16 is the first part of a two-part series to determine the top champion in the league, it is therefore according to this guideline inherently notable and is no different in kind with respect to the sport of kickboxing than the Super Bowl is with respect to American Football, the World Cup with respect to Football, or the Olympic Finals with respect to Olympic sports. The notability of the rest of K-1's annual events is another discussion, but the Final 16 and Final 8 are the two most significant and definitive events in the sport of kickboxing. Ultimoprismo (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I like Poison Whiskey's suggestion of creating one article for the tournament as a whole. I'd agree that the tournament is notable, I'm not as sure that an individual qualifier event for the tournament is notable. CaSJer (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty good knowledge of Wikipedia for a first edit. However, I just looked at WP:SPORTSEVENT and it says the final series, e.g. "Stanley Cup Finals" not earlier eliminations.  Your argument might work for the Final 8 event.  In addition, it says "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and these articles are just fight results.  I do see that several editors have agreed that an article on the whole tournament might work, but that it would have to be more than just a listing of fight results. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty good knowledge for an IP that has been repeatedly warned for vandalizing wiki pages. Luchuslu (talk) 16:23, 21 November 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.