Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa


 * 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. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect, if desired. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 14:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results) nor are they from diverse sources that are inderpendant of the subject of MMA. The article also does not make any attempt to demonstrate the event's lasting effect and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event  Mt  king  (edits)  03:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  Mt  king  (edits)  03:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

*Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SENSE. First off, yeah, I know some will cry conflict of interest, but I just don't care, because it is about time an actual expert chimes in. Everyone in the actual fight community is aware of these discussions and while most just find them funny, some of us who actually do know a thing or two about MMA find them insulting and disgraceful to what should be a good site. So, before posting I familiarized myself with the site so I can make an intelligent response. First off, if you search around the various ProElite articles, you will find that these articles were previously kept not too long ago, so why another discussion so soon? See Articles for deletion/ProElite 1 (event). A version of this article was part of that bulk nomination. Because the nominator didn't get his way last time, here we ago again a couple months later! Second, if you search around in the edit history of the ProElite's related articles, content from this article has been merged around and so it cannot be deleted legally per WP:MAD as the attributions must maintain intact, i.e. at worst it would be redirected with edit history intact. Third, there is no pressing need to delete an obviously valid search term. Who must we protect from this information? Fourth, the two delete votes are from obvious sock or meat accounts. Seriously look at their edit history: and. These are obvious single-purpose accounts whose entire edit history consists of piling on virtually copy and paste delete votes with the nominator in MMA discussions. They pass the WP:DUCK test to the extreme. No article building, no arguing to keep. The entire edit history of these two accounts is to say to indiscriminately delete anything and everything to do with MMA. Fifth, the nomination and the delete voters violate at least WP:BEFORE and certainly WP:TEND and demonstrably so. They quote claim that only MMA sites covered his event and the coverage is limited to results. BULLSHIT!!! That is flat out not true. See for example Sergio Non, "Minowa brings cape, flair to ProElite against Grove," USA Today (19 January 2012) from before the fights and then Sergio Non, "Kendall Grove outgrapples Minowa at ProElite 3," USA Today (22 January 2012) afterwards. Can you honestly look me in the eye and say USA TODAY is an MMA specific site?! I thought not. And those are just two of many examples, but I am copying and pasting ones cited from the actual article itself even! No as for the significance of the event, well, it was headlined by a major fighter, he, he Kendall Grove of UFC fame and an Olympian of some reknown in the undercard in Sara McMann. Not exactly a collection of unknowns. Also, it was televised on a major cable network. We are not talking about some podunk local event with a bunch of no names. We have at least two major people of notability competing in a televised event of an at least second tier promotion that holds events months apart. Nothing "routine" about that. The same logic and way they WP:DICK interpret WP:ROUTINE would also preclude coverage of the individual superbowls, because their coverage is the same kind of coverage every other superbowl gets...  No, the fact that an event is televised, features mainstream fighters, is covered in non-MMA specific press is notable, plain and simple. Lastly, as far as lasting importance goes,well, the article shows that it featured Heavyweight Grand Prix Semifinal bouts, which means that this event's significance indeed goes beyond the event itself as the outcome of those bouts determines the finalists in a future tournament championship. At worst,once again, tournament information would be merged somewhere. But there is plain out no honest reason for making this article a redlink that makes Wikipedia more helpful and relevant site in any way. The calls to delete amount to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because for someone to dishonestly claim that something covered in USA Today is only covered in MMA specific articles is frankly an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can use Google. And the fact that the only accounts that seem to show up again and again in the nominator's MMA related discussions are accounts whose sole edits consist of following each other in these discussions right from their very first edits is beyond obvious that they are at least WP:MEAT accounts. To believe for a second otherwise would be to act the fool. Anyone who seriously thinks this event is not sufficiently notable is totally ignorant of this subject and has no business commenting in such discussions. --Spyder Grove (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Striking comments made by indef blocked user  Ravenswing  15:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article clearly passes WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally non-routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, analysis of the event, significance of the event, and the results) and are from diverse sources that are inderpendant of the subject of MMA. The article also does demonstrates the event's lasting effect and shows that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event due to the notable fighters who participated in the event and relevance of key fights.   --The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)  Note: Striking comments made by a blocked troll.  Mt  king  (edits)  11:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Another MMA event that fails to show the long term signficance required by WP:EVENT or that it is anything but routine sports results (thus failing WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Subjects fails both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Article is nothing buts sports results. Mdtemp (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Grove, first to address the WP:SOCK argument the best place to address your concerns is at WP:SPI as it doesn't directly relate to the discussion of this AfD. As for this AfD, there is a concern among Wikipedia editors both in out of the MMA WikiProject that event articles such as this one don't comply with WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT.  Specifically, "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, ... are not sufficient basis for an article" (WP:ROUTINE).  Also, "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" (WP:SPORTSEVENT).  This article up for AfD, contains a list of fight results and two sentences.  In my opinion, that doesn't qualify as having "well-sourced prose" and doesn't include anything other than "routine news coverage".  Could this article be improved to meet these guidelines?  Yes, quite possibly it could.  There are close to 200 UFC event articles and a number of event articles for numerous promotions, notable or not.  It will take time to rectify this situation.  Currently, there is an effort by people, including the nominator to come up with a solution to this problem including having omnibus or "year in" articles similar to what was recently created at 2012 in UFC events.  The idea is to have an article discussing, through prose, a promotion's events and what is significant about those events.  Such an article covering this event article up for AfD would likely include prose about the Grove-Minowa bout (what lead up to the fight occurring, short background on the two competitors and how the fight unfolded) and would also likely discuss the heavyweight grand prix.  But again, it's going to take time to get these articles written and things situated.


 * I've read and re-read your comments several times. To me, it seems you are capable of fairly well written statements.  (Better than many in these AfD discussions.)  It appears you've made an effort to research Wikipedia and how things operate.  I would invite you to help improve the existing articles and with the attempts at including well sourced prose in MMA event articles.  Elsewhere, I've repeatedly pointed to UFC 94 as a good template for what event articles should strive for as it has been given good article status.  I've been attempting to do similar work with UFC 140 and UFC 147.  I have only so much time in the day however.  I would welcome another person or two to help out with writing well-sourced prose in a neutral point of view for MMA articles (events, organizations, and fighters).  You're also welcome to participate in discussions at the MMA WikiProject talk page or to start your own discussion sections to help us figure out how to best serve the MMA community within the guidelines and policies set by Wikipedia.  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to comment directly on the content of Spyder Grove's missive, save to make some observations, it was posted 2 minutes after the account was created, which is either a typing speed in excess of 390 words per minute or the content was pre-prepared perhaps by someone else, given the appearance so soon after a prolific MMA fan was blocked I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that his observations about socking are a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Mt  king  (edits)  01:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say so. The tidal wave of SPA Keep voters on these MMA AfDs long since turned to farce, and I would love to see a rule requiring at least 500 edits in order to participate at AfD.  That being said, the SPAs' frequent - and unsupported - assertions (as Grove does) that they represent a united fight community of experts not only has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but they presuppose that no one here is knowledgeable, which is a crock.  (Heck, I've been following MMA since well before the freaking term was coined.)  Ravenswing  10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually,Iwoudl support requiring at least 500 edits before allowing accounts to comment in AfDs, because the unsupported and inaccurrate claims of single-purpose delete everything accounts are what we have from this and all the other MMA related AfDs: and  (Yes, you see correctly: the tidal wave of delete vote-stacking are coming from the same handful of accounts whose VERY FIRST FEW HUNDRED EDITS CONSIST ENTIRELY OF VOTING TO DELETE with boilerplate posts).  --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: as failing the GNG, since of the two reliable sources cited, both are to the same source, one is not about the subject, and the other is simple match results explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE.  Ravenswing  10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it passes WP:GNG due to several reliable sources that provide more than just results and therefore are not routine in nature. Please make honest posts.  Thanks! --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge into 2012 in mixed martial arts events (My WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL says it will be created this weekend). The article up for AfD fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as I explained above to Mr. Grove.  It's overall notability as a single MMA event for a possibly second tier organization seems to be in question.  Putting the significant happenings with this event in prose form in an omnibus article, recently discussed here, may allow for the important content to be kept in a broader article. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to ProElite or to 2012 in mixed martial arts events. An issue is that its current title is based upon only one of the many events held at that time and place by ProEltite. We have enough verifability to support a merge and redirect to the one place where ALL the scheduled events can be spoken of in relationship to themselves and the overall January 12 set of matches, even if not enough sourcing for an separate article. If someone is looking for "Grove vs. Minowa" the redirect will send them to where it makes sense to speak of the sourcable topic.  And it might be time to consider an expansion of ProElite so that readers have the context and content they seek. There is growing media interest in MMA events, and though they do not currently have the "media popularity" of national levels of competition in Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Hockey, Horse Racing, Tennis, etc... the popularity and coverage is growing. And while we might argue the fine points of the various portions of WP:EVENT, we have to understand and accept that that coverage of international MMA competitions will likely grow and not diminish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion Pending Nominator, do you have a citation that sources demonstrating notability of an article should be independent of the broader subject (MMA), and not the literal subject (ProElite)? I ask because that is a dramatically different interpretation of the WP:GNG than I believe to be true.  Surely, (as an example) a Sports Illustrated article is helpful in showing the notability of a sportsman, even though Sports Illustrated is not independent of the subject of sports. gnfnrf (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: That would be WP:DIVERSE, as cited in the nomination. A single source cannot be used to fulfill the requirements of the GNG.   Ravenswing   17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would only apply if there was a single source. Fortunately, this event has been covered in numerous sources, including ones independent of MMA and sports event, such as two separate USA Today articles from before as well as after the event.
 * Sergio Non, "Minowa brings cape, flair to ProElite against Grove," USA Today (19 January 2012).
 * Sergio Non, "Kendall Grove outgrapples Minowa at ProElite 3," USA Today (22 January 2012).
 * The claims that this event is only sourced to one source or that it is only sourced to MMA specific media is simply not true and to say otherwise is to be deceptive and dishonest. Moreover, the coverage goes beyond just reporting the results. This article discusses the event in a way that reviews its relevance, by exploring how it improved from the promotion's earlier showings.  I will accordingly start a reception section on the actual article page itself because I do not believe in merely lazily commenting in the discussion without also actually improving the article itself. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles in USA Today do, indeed, comprise a single reliable source, which perhaps you would know were you conversant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I agree that a number of MMA-specific blogs have chimed in, but such websites tend not to qualify under WP:IRS as reliable, published sources.   Ravenswing   03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DIVERSE does not address the question about the nominator's logic that I have; or I don't think it does. Let me be very specific.  The nominator says "sources that are inderpendant of the subject of MMA."  DIVERSE warns against sources under "common control or influence".  Are you saying that the entire MMA press is under common control or influence, as meant in DIVERSE?  Because I certainly don't believe that to be true.
 * My actual question wasn't about the wording of DIVERSE, though, but about the wording of WP:GNG itself, which says, as I hope everyone here knows, "...multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject" and in expansion, explains that independent of the subject excludes "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator."
 * The nominator wrote "independent of the subject of MMA", but, I contend, MMA is not the subject of the article, ProElite 3 is. MMA is the subject-as-category of the article (as opposed to cooking, or European history), but not the subject-as-focus of the article.  I always believed that "subject" in the context of the GNG meant subject-as-focus, but the nominator seems to be saying that it means subject-as-category.  This is what I am seeking clarification on. gnfnrf (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Without further justification, I can't see the nominator's arguments holding water. A lot of pages are cited, but MMAEVENT is an essay, and I don't think either EVENT (for news events) or SPORTSEVENT (for single games or series, which this is not) strictly apply.  I see the point about routine coverage, however, but I think that's a problem with the content of the article, not a reason do delete.  This event, like most, had lasting effects on at least some of the participating fighters, and I think with some work, some cited information about those effects can be found. gnfnrf (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're saying that since most events in life have a lasting effect on some of the participants, most events are notable. I might agree with the first part, but not the second (at least not as regards WP notability).  As far as MMA goes, I suspect many/most fight cards have impacted some of the fighters, but that doesn't mean they're all notable.  The same can be said of many car accidents. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the lasting effects of a professional MMA event on the fighters are (potentially) covered in reliable sources, and the lasting effects of a typical car accident on its victims are not. gnfnrf (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, because no one has offered an honest reason not to. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)  Note: Blocked Sock.
 * Actually plenty of reasons have been given. You might want to familarize yourself with the various Wikipedia policies. Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No reasons based in reality have been given as the article meets any and all Wikipedia policies with flying colors. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)  Note: Blocked Sock.


 * Delete Only the third event for this go-around of management. This article fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE.  For discussions concerning sources it should be remembered that WP:N says that multiple sources "is not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is no reason for deletion based on facts. The article clearly pass WP:EVENT due to the non-routine nature of the coverage that attracted mainstream, non-MMA specific media coverage in such publications as USA Today.  Despite the vote-stacking by the same handful of accounts that do nothing but indiscriminately say to delete in every single MMA related discussion, fortunately, this is not a vote and the honest reality is that the subject is unquestionably notable by any objective measure due to the lasting significance of the event's historic tournament round and participation by an Olympian and an Ultimate Fighter.   --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)  Note: Blocked Sock.
 * Please show how this event had "a noted and sourced permanent effect", "duration of coverage", "historical significance", or "a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world" as mentioned in WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 5 April 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.