Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 117


 * 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   Already redirected. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

UFC 117

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article page contains no verifiable sources regarding a time, location, participants, etc. As it stands, the article does not yet meet the criteria for WP:GNG as there is no coverage of the event. Also, the article is WP:CRYSTAL and should remain under future UFC events until more information is known about the fight. avs5221 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Clearly falls under WP:CRYSTAL. — Rankiri (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect, according to Nate's following suggestion. — Rankiri (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bad case of crystalballitis. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per all above. I originally listed this as a speedy deletion, which was denied. Just forgot to relist this as regular deletion. It's going to create a lot of deleted edits for me as I've had to keep this thing virtually blanked due to false info, but yeah...needs deletion. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of UFC events event will almost certainly happen, and the article will be re-created so no point deleting, just point @ the list. --Natet/c 12:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So delete and salt instead. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Salting is completely the wrong answer, the article WILL be valid eventually, and salting would mean hassle in creating it, while a simple redirect points people somewhere useful. Salting is for articles that are persistently recreated and should not exist.--Natet/c 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles for UFC are always created by new users and are swiftly deleted because they contain stupid, unsourced information. Just create a temp salting (a semi-protection) if that's possible, so that the pages aren't created by new users. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Temp till when? This is almost guaranteed to be wrong, and have to be removed early or expire befor info is available, redirecting solves this as most new users would be satisfied on arriving @ the list or not know how to go back to edit the old page and by the time the did they are much more likely to know not to create it! --Natet/c 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just redirect? It seems like a reasonable solution. — Rankiri (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of UFC events per Nate. Light weight solution to a light weight problem. jmcw (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would still say Delete. It's pretty safe to assume that Zuffa will get to at least UFC 150 (and probably many more unless they start calling the events by a different name), so we can redirect all of those OR just create the pages as they are announced as per Speculation policies (i.e. WP:CRYSTAL).(Justinsane15 (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
 * back aroudn 75 someone created up to 100 as redirects to avoid this, it wouldn't take much effort to create up tot 150 and it would save every one time with the creation debate & eventual deletion (along with the ones where they suddenly become valid 1/2 way though the AfD). --Natet/c 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the consensus agrees with this, then I'd have no problem with performing the redirects. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." I know it seems easier to just make a whole bunch of redirects, but it opens up the rabbit hole if we start doing that. I still say follow WP:CRYSTAL guidelines and delete the article until more is known with certainty. avs5221 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Crystal says nothing about redirects, the aim here is to avoid creation of the pages as articles that will just be deleted. --Natet/c 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The page wasn't a redirect when I listed if on AfD. It's since been changed to a redirect. Here's the diff for reference. And I agree with your aim, that's why I listed it. avs5221 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies then. As there was no response, I presumed it was ok to do this. I did it up to 120, I think. Delete if you want. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:23, 4 March 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.