Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Allied Fight Series


 * 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   keep. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

North American Allied Fight Series

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesnt seem to be a notable enough organization to have a wikipedia article. It's a local fight promotion, of which there are tons of. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: if this article is deleted then the redirect NAAFS should be deleted per WP:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Local promotions don't get licensed to put on shows all over the eastern US. They are licensed all the way from Michigan all the way down to South Carolina. The argument that they are a local fight promotion fails miserably from the start. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would like to point out that NAAFS belts are contested at Bellator events. I never dug into the connection but every so often i'll be watching a sherdog pbp and it will talk about the fight being a NAAFS fight. Here is some Evidence to support some cross-over between submission wrestling and NAAFS, as well as to support their having notable UFC fighters such as Stipe Miocic and Jeff Monson have fought for them. http://naafs.biz/site/2012/03/16/a-pair-of-naafs-titles-on-the-line-at-bellator-66/ http://www.ludusfightclub.com/2012/03/12/naafs-is-promoting-2-title-fights-for-bellator-66-undercard/.

Keep. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's notability was pre-established by the consensus of people within the project as it was placed on the list of promotions who needed an article done. Anybody who follows MMA is fully aware of the NAAFS notability. They put on as many shows as the UFC does, and is a major partner with Bellator. I'm not attacking the person, but take a look at the history of the person suggesting the deletion. He has been changing up my work, starting editing wars, and trying to get my work deleted. It seems odd that just after he get unblocked for initiating an editing war, that he goes to my articles and suggests them for deletion. Please don't let him convince you to delete my work. Thanks. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:POT is my response to the irrelevant and unrelated comments about past edit wars that have nothing to do with the AfD discussion. It may be your work, but it still has to pass the guidelines. If it does it can be kept, if it doesnt well... it'll be deleted. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Response:Not to try to be mean or anything, you are going around proposing countless deletions. How about contributing articles and help make the articles better. Also, so many of these people that you are asking to be deleted are relevant names in the sport. The NAAFS is a huge part of the MMA world, they literaly put on as many if not more shows than the UFC. A significant portion of UFC fighters got their start in the NAAFS, not to mention they are the go to organization for Bellator to help fill up their cards with good fights. If you don't understand why an organization like this is notable and significant to the sport, maybe you should consider getting involved with editing something other than MMA. Like I said, I'm not trying to be mean or call you out on it, just want to help create a legit reference for people, especially MMA fans to easily go to. Have you looked at some of the MMA forums. You and another guy are becoming well known in the MMA forums, and not very positively I may add. Just think about that please. Willdawg111 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I really could care less what some stranger on a forum thinks about me. I dont feel wikipedia needs a bunch of articles for unnotable fighters. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it matters to anybody, but happened to be looking through some MMA forums, and people are upset about the amount of articles being deleted on Wikipedia because they like to use it as a source as reference. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ Wiki operates off of donations and if people aren't coming to wiki, they won't be getting donations. How about we stop trying to delete everything and work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Important Note This organization was on the project list as an organization that needed to be done. Everybody though it was important enough to do an article on, but after 1 is done, you have somebody trying to argue that it isn't notable enough. Where was that debate before the article was written. If you have an issue with the notability or a project requested article, then you need to do that sooner, and not doing so should constitute you agreeing that the person/organization is notable and you should forever hold your peace.I've taken the time to do some research to work on articles requested by the project community, and if you guys let them be deleted, then I won't be taking the time to help do anymore of them. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a regional organization that appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. GHits appear to be limited to the usual event and fight card announcements on MMA oriented sites and local newspapers.  No significant coverage outside of that.  --TreyGeek(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal(I see you have changed your argument from local to regional) and I would argue that since they are from Ohio anything that includes them in a Bellator related news article is regional(Being regional does not make it automatically non notable) or better unless it takes place in Ohio. For example :Not local
 * Rebuttal Anybody who thinks they are just a regional show is seriusly mis-informed. They are actually licensed to put on shows in quite a few states, even as far as South Carolina. Please tell me that we don't have people who believe that Ohio and South Carolina are in the same region. There is also one other thing about the NAAFS that makes them very significant. They are one of the few promotion companies that is actually used by some of the athletic commission to sanction fights. The perform a similar function as the ISKA does in some states, where they help the state out by performing the duties of the sanctioning body for some smaller shows. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just curious if you have a source (even primary would be cool) that supports your last sentence? That sounds like a nice tidbid to support the keep. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have to go look and see what I could come up with. It isn't something that is really talked about, and the reason I knew that was that SC had some real safety issues with the ISKA doing its sanctioning. The NAAFS had a couple of its reps come in, and help fix the sanctioning. They were actually seriously looking at using the NAAFS to do the sanctioning in SC, but ultimately deciced to consult with them and use them to help fix everything and do the sanctioning themselves. Not to be funny, but very few people really understand all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on unless you are a part of it. That's why none of the sanctioning information was placed into the article, because what I know came from inside sources, and nothing public that I could provide. If I can find it somewhere referenceable, then I will add it to the article. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect: Based on the reading of the article and how it appears to dangle as a hanger on on the Bellator promotion (including it's title belts being fought for at Bellator events), I think it would be appropriate to merge and redirect this article to Bellator. No objection to an appropriate spinout in the future when this sub-promotion gains significant notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification This is NOT a sub-promotion of Bellator. The NAAFS has been putting on shows years before Belltor ever started. They have put on over 150 shows since 2007. What promotion in the world has put on over 150 shows in 6 years. The UFC doesn't even do that. These guys are a huge part of MMA, which is why Bellator sought them out to co-promote events. This is one of the biggest MMA promotions in the world. We should be discussing adding them to the top tier list, not whether or not they are relevant to have an article.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No... you missed the point. Read the text again.  I said appears meaning that since this promotion's belts are fought over at Bellator, it makes sense to align them there.  "These guys are a huge part of MMA"  Really? Prove it.  Show that they have more clout than the entries on the first tier of MMA organizations at WP:MMATIER.  Just because they've ran a significant amount of events.  I'm looking through the fighters as notable veterans, and just from my spot check (meaning random sampling) I'm not even seeing mentions (or at minimum a few entries there) of this league in their records. I still assert that this would probably be better served by a section at Bellator. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You say you are a licensed referee, judge and fighter. I think you have a conflict of interest. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're digging, and digging really deep. Being a ref and a judge is about being able to be neutral. I have to be neutral even when working events for guys that I have trained, trained with, been acquanted with for years. That's a good point, except that it shows I have the LEAST conflict of interest. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * llama: The other side of the coin is that he could be considered an expert. I also received the same accusation on another afd. Just because individuals such as myself and Dawg have first-hand knowledge of the sport does not necessarily represent a coi. I have seen no statement from Dawg saying that he is on the NAAFS payroll or is married to the owner of the organization. I think "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a dose of reality. Just for the record. I have never been employed by the NAAFS. I don't have any family members employed by the NAAFS. I have never even been to one of their live shows. Like he is trying to point out to you, what I do within the sport just gives me a better understanding of how things work. I'm there at the shows when things are being setup, when the doctors are doing fighter physicals. I'm part of the pre-fight meetings, the verification and approvals by the athletic commission reps. It gives me an inside track on how the system works, but in no way does it make me biased. I'm not really sure how it could. If if makes you feel better, I won't write any articles or get involved in any articles dealing with the state athletic commissions that hire me to work the shows.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is you've made the admission that you're a ref for a MMA organization, therefore you have a vested interest in having MMA articles included in Wikipedia. Therefore you have a Conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are countless amounts of referees. I would argue that it is incidental that Dawg is a ref. And he has brought up angles to argue that I haven't seen others present. Why would you want to stifle valid points just because of a technicality you assert he has triggered. Read back a couple posts where I posted a quote from the COI article talking about using common sense. There is no identifiable connection with Dawg and NAAFS so at thins point you are on a WP:WITCHHUNTPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to either be willfully ignorant or lacking in common sense I shall draw the map for you. If MMA articles have a significant representation on MMA, then more people know about them, then people go to MMA events, which encourages promotions to have more events, which means that fights need to be refereed, which means that Willdawg111 has the potential for more work.  It's 5 levels of linkage, but enough to make me strongly think that Willdawg should not be making the primary defense for this article. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a bonafide conspiracy theory you have going on. You want so badly for what you are saying to be true. What you are saying is that Dawg is editing articles on here simply to fuel events so that he might have more work? I'm not even going to address that directly except for WP:WITCHHUNT. It's not just him earlier. Because you made the same accusation towards me (of having a coi) for an even more vague reason. Did you ever stop and think that you might be the only one that feels this way? or at best that you apart of a fringe minority whose arguements grow increasingly desperate for next to no reason?? You have now retreated to the assertion that he should not be making the primary defense of this article. Even if that were true it does not discount everything he has said up till now because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - I don't see anything in this article that couldn't be gotten from that company's website, or from the sherdog page for this article. I'm sure they play an important part in the MMA minor leagues, but nothing in this article demonstrates that. I don't see a list of events, or any single event of note. The list of fighters who've competed for them is pretty bare. If something beyond a info-skeleton could be developed, something that talks about the history and importance of the organization (and is not original research), then there is an argument for keeping it, but as it appears to be an even smaller organization than KOTC I don't see a lot of justification.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a small organization. This is a huge organizations. Nobody has put on more shows than they have in the last 6 years, including the UFC. This isn't some local show who puts on an occasional show. This organization is the real deal, the major leagues, and should be listed as a top tier organization.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of organizations that put on a lot of shows, not all of them are really important. What have they done other than put on a lot of shows, put some filler in Bellator, and been a starting point for the occasional notable fighter? The idea that this organization should be considered as big as the UFC, or any other top MMA organization, because they put on a lot of shows seems hyperbolic at best. Who are their current champions, what's been their biggest event? Do they get extensive, consistent media coverage? At this point it appears to be of about the exact same profile as Rage in the Cage, a persistent feeder league that provides a stable, bare bones base for pro-mma while having no obvious presence in the sport. These kind of organizations dot the globe, there's Finn Fight, ProFC, ZST, Rage in the Cage, Cage Force, etc. All of these organizations are important for building new talent, but if any of them went away it would go almost entirely unnoticed even by dedicated MMA media and fans. At that point it's hard to see why it needs an article here.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the organization didn't need an article then why was it on the list of organizations that needed articles created by the project. The consensus of people wanted the article done, and now a few people who didn't speak up when it was put on the list of articles that needed to be done, no longer want it?Willdawg111 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it would appear that anyone can add any promotion to that list, it's just a list of promotions people think ought to get made. It appears to include some potential consensus ability, but I see no signs that that is pursued with any vigor. Beyond that your above argument against deletion is circular, if a few people can agree that an article should get made, then why can't a few people agree that it isn't good enough to keep as well? It's the same basic process both ways.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia:MMATIER#Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions lists criteria supporting notability and deletion (for some of the data, see http://www.mma-core.com/organizations/North_American_Allied_Fight_Series_NAAFS/1854):

Criteria supporting notability

1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. - this a bit more detailed than what I have time to do now - Unknown

2. Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. - in 2012 had 16 events and in 2011 had 21 events (by comparison Strikeforce did 7 events in 2012 and 16 in 2011). - Met

3. Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable - been around since 2005 and in MMA terms 7 years is a long time - Met.

4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters. - There seem to be a lot of UFC and Bellator vets, but I am not comfortable with what standard is 'well-known' and 'large number' - Unknown/Lean towards Met

Criteria supporting deletion

1. Has only promoted a single event. - has promoted many events - Not Met

2. Short history as an organization. - in view of notability criteria 2 and 3 - Not Met

3. Few notable fighters fight in their events. - lists at least 10 notable fighters, which is more than a few - Not Met

4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts - all fights appear to be sanctioned by state commission that follows unified rules (e.g., http://aco.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6aNFV8Uaiq4%3d&tabid=71) - Not Met

5. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies. - See criteria 4 for deletion - Not Met

Seems clear to me that there is relatively strong support to keep and very little reason to delete. Therefore, this appears to be a keep. -RonSigPi (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew for sure they are definitely a notable organization but wasn't sure what guidelines I needed to prove it to those people not involved in MMA. This was very well laid out where anybody regardless of having any knowledge of MMA or not should be able to understand. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No's 1&4 are certainly not met for criteria to keep. It is very very rarely the subject of any media coverage even within MMA journalism. And has promoted a few fighters, many of whom were not well known or highly ranked at the time of their competition there, and those fighters are a severe minority for the number of shows and fighters this promotion has hosted. which would put it in criteria 3 for deletion. I think it's on the very low end of what might be keep-able (essentially I think it should probably be deleted), but your score tallying seems way off base. The only arguments that can reasonably be made for NAAFS is that they are putting on a large number of shows per year and have been around since 2005. This stub still contains no information that couldn't be gotten off the business website or off sherdog, and two of the links are to MMA stat archives (Sherdog/Tapology) and another is to the business website itself, and none (except for those pertaining to the notable fighters) actually match up as references to any of the written text in the article. Right now the only thing notable about NAAFS is that it exists.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Your assertion that NAAFS does receive some coverage would lead me to believe it passes WP:V. Did you not read about the scandal they got caught up in? If you havent, then it is near the bottom of this discussion. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That does not make them the subject of multiple independent articles. As I said coverage of the NAAFS is incredibly rare. The number of actual articles that are about the NAAFS as the principal subject (i.e. not about a fighter who happens to be appearing on one of their shows) could probably be counted on one hand. And that's across the entire 7 year history of their organization. To spin that as multiple independent articles from national and international media is gross misrepresentation.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets criteria supporting notability listed at Wikipedia:MMATIER#Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment . I only need 2 fingers to count the articles it needs to be found in (and it doesn't have to be in the article title. The article just has to have more than a trivial mention of the subject) to meet WP:GNG]. Luckily, and i'll say it just once more, we have that in spades. Sorry, We seem to be arguing in circles. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not seeing the part of GNG that says as long as a subject is mentioned more than once in its entire history of existence it is grandfathered into wikipedia and may never be challenged as worthy of coverage. I think this subject barely passes the loosest possibly interpretation of GNG, that is my argument against it. That it is the least possibly notable thing which could be argued to have a place on wikipedia. If this AfD acts as a method to greatly improve the quality of this stub, then great, but I don't think that enough information exists to develop this article beyond what it already is, which is almost entirely devoid of meaningful information.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- to quote the GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]". It passes. Also keep in mind that Notability is not temporary. also please see WP:NNC and read " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." and to be reasonable. I don't think Wilddawg is trying to inflate the NAAFS to be something it isn't. On his talk page (and in the notability article where I copied and pasted his rankings) you will notice he placed NAAFS in the new tier three. So while it IS notable, it is not by any means a UFC/Bellator equivalent. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty  845  02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting Comment It would be helpful if some additional discussion could occur focused on whether the subject meets WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines that have already been adopted by the community at large. Monty  845  02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe it does pass the WP:GNG by having multiple quality refs that span 2009-2012, here, here, and here, here, and here

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If you read any article about the NAAFS is uggest you read http://www.mmaweekly.com/naafs-admits-shock-over-revelation-of-brandon-salings-past. It's about how they let a registered sex offender with Nazi tattoos on him compete several times. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that make them more or less notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I say more. That article + 1 more(which it has in spades) is enough for it to pass WP:V PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It has enough outside references in the article already although the new ones mentioned above should be worked in.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's pretty obvious that this is one of the more notable MMA organizations. Can we close this out as a keep? Willdawg111 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2013 (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.