Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Fights 18


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Shark Fights 18

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested WP:PROD : No indication that this MMA event is notable, only sourced to routine coverage of the fight card. Mt king  (edits)  20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per lack of any actual reason not to. Coverage available is more than sufficient for this televised event from a major promotion.  --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet - striking comments per Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage only, fails WP:MMAEVENT. Mt  king  (edits)  23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because in the case the coverage is not routine, it passes WP:MMAEVENT. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What coverage ? Mt  king  (edits)  23:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you have discussions about the event (the fights, the fact that it would be televised, etc.) before it happened . Google turns up all kinds of results once you sift through them.  I am just citing one of many examples, but it is not a case where sources merely list the results after the fact. No, you got both before and after coverage.  And it is not routine by any stretch.  No, it is not as notable as the UFC events you are bafflingly arguing against, but it is not some local event I slapped together with some pals only covered in the local press either.  Nor is it one of hundreds of seasonal baseball games you get in a year.  For MMA, there are only really a handful of nationally and/or interntionally televised promotions whose events occurs weeks apart from each other.  It does not diminish wikipedi by listing a couple dozens events for a promotion like Shark Fights that features fighters who have or did go onto to fight in the UFC and that were televised and discussed in multiple secondary sources.  And before you throw anymore shortcuts, if it comes down to it WP:IAR, because I really just don't see how we benefit anyone is Shark Fights 18 is red and Articles for deletion/Shark Fights 18 is blue.  So long as an article is sourced and is of obvious interest to someoneone,I would always rather keep the article and improve it the best we can or merge and redirect to an event list than become Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia of Deletion Discussions!  --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't repeat what is written at WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:USEFUL, WP:VALINFO but since you have failed to reproduce a single link to non routine coverage here; I think it is safe to conduce you cant find any, and they don't exists. Mt  king  (edits)  00:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article appears to simply be WP:ROUTINE coverage of an MMA WP:SPORTSEVENT, contains only stats and fight results and practically no prose to make it an encyclopedic article. It's only source is to Sherdog and a Google search suggests there was no main-steam media of the event and only limited "significant coverage" within MMA media, thus fails WP:GNG.  (And no, I'm not going to argue my decision with an IP or others.)  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE since this article is just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as this event does appear to be verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Due to its televised aspect, it is one of those we should cover.  At this point, events from UFC, ProElite, Bellator, Strikeforce, Shark Fights, Tachi Palace Fights, are the ones that are worth having articles on.  I really do not see any plus to deleting this article.  So, keep per WP:GNG and WP:FIVE, if nothing else.  --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking comments on advice from an admin from an indef blocked user due to abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep As it meets WP:GNG. See this AfD link and this one to see my opinion of these rather pointless AfD cases being made against MMA events, which is by the way, a losing battle for those on side of the 'Delete' votes. BigzMMA (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR. Look, we know it is not as important as say UFC 140, but still it was televised and is more than just a local promotion.  I personally find such articles helpful and because there are at least some secondary sources available, I think it would be more harmful to remove this information than continue to improve it.  --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)  Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts.
 * Delete The only thing is the article are the fight results, so it clearly fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep due to coverage beyond just results meaning it clearly passes WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  struck opinion by blocked, most likely banned user.  Amalthea  00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per BigzMMA. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)  struck opinion by blocked, most likely banned user.  Amalthea  00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete None of this article's defenders have yet shown that this article passes any of WP:N, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE, or WP:MMANOT. Looks like a clean sweep for deletion. Mdtemp (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website.  It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet.  --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — User: (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And you appear to represent a SPA whose recent history is spamming that boilerplate complaint about Mdtemp. Hasteur (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:N and WP:EVENT due to non-routine nature of the coverage and as article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Looks like a clear cut case for keeping.   --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Very similar IPs (63.3.19.1 and 63.3.19.130) are already involved in a !vote on this AfD above. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete by TKO: Zero reliable coverage, zero sources, zero on article. Perhaps the wave of sockpuppets and meatpuppets infesting these MMA AfDs would be better served turning their energies to coming up with reliable sources which meet Wikipedia guidelines than to claim that their blogs and press releases do so.  Ravenswing  06:00, 18 March 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.