Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 137


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

UFC 137

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a future sports event that currently fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:FUTURE. A number of footnotes have been added but on examination mentions of the event are either tangential (and do nothing to substantiate notability) or vague as to any details. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page already cites multiple, reputable sources and will be continue to develop as information becomes available. Sources indicate that a title bout featuring arguably the most popular mixed martial artist on Earth will be competing. Ppt1973 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Give the people what they want: "Wikipedia article traffic statistics: UFC_137 has been viewed 226424 times in the last 30 days." It's sourced well enough, it's not idle speculation on something that will never happen. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not normally a rationale to keep. If someone were to create List of best porn websites it would get many times more hits than this article but it would still be against a couple of policies. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not normally a rationale to keep, but worth mentioning. Running a plain Google search isn't "normally a rationale" either — and that returned over 400,000 hits on the exact phrase "UFC 137." Did you bother with WP:BEFORE on this one? Or are you making the argument that all future sporting events are non-notable per se? Because, in addition to the sourcing showing in the article, there is THIS VIA THE L.A. TIMES and THIS ON NBC SPORTS and THIS ON THE ALL SPORTS NETWORK. Seriously... That's like 2 minutes of hunting to pull those out. You've got some valid cases below, but you need to withdraw this one, because it's a terrible nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - If you were to delete this one you would have to delete multiple ones. c.m1994 (talk to me) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Second all of the opinions noted above. tw, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.205.208 (talk)


 * 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.