Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace Fighting Championship


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Palace Fighting Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a non-notable martial arts organization. The article itself describes it as "a minor circuit", it was only in business for 2 years, and it fails to meet WP:GNG. Even the website doesn't exist. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Sports Illustrated a source? If we wish to define "source" quite broadly, then at least http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/mma/boxing/07/21/palace.fighting.closes/index.html discusses them. Emily Jensen (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, given the article's distastefully violent and plebeian subject, no more respectable sources could reasonably be required. More "sources" of a similar nature might be located. Emily Jensen (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So SI mentioned they were closing shop. That's not "significant coverage" or proof of notability.  Lots of companies go out of business every day--that hardly makes them notable.  In fact, it would seem to show just the opposite.  I can find stories in every major newspaper on a daily basis about companies going out of business.  I'm not sure what your point is. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's coverage, in a source which seems to be acceptable for an article of this nature. That, and more, would confer significance. I haven't voted to keep the article yet. Emily Jensen (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some sources to the article. From a Google news search, I found that there were a large number of matches, championships, and other events held at this organization. It appears to be very notable in the MMA world. Silver  seren C 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I still don't see the notability. WP:N says "notability is not temporary" and "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article."  Of the 6 external links (no references are given in the article), one is their non-existent home page, one is their myspace page, one is for Sherdog results (which all MMA bouts get), one is for a fight that didn't happen and was never scheduled for PFC, one is the aforementioned SI article about them folding, and one is from a local paper.  How can this org be "very notable in the MMA world" when it doesn't even exist and was in and out of business in 2 years?  I have nothing against this organization, I happened to stumble across this article by chance, but I still don't see how it passes WP:N.  Even WP:RS isn't a given. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Silverseren. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Local event, but some wider sourcing (SI & yahoo sports), needs a bit of cleaning. If a source can bee added to the Playboy bit then it potentially has wider than local notability. --Natet/c 08:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sports Illustrated and other news sources felt them notable enough to mention. A popular long running magazine on sports, would be a greater judge than any of us, of whether this is notable or not.   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I find that PFC has generated much news . The WP:NTEMP concerns are quite justified about the events that PFC has organised but this article is about the PFC organization, not just its events. jmcw (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Google news actually hits less, but still a significant level of coverage: --Natet/c 07:49, 20 April 2010 (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.