Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 144


 * 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. There is evidence and agreement that this UFC event has garnered enough attention and significant coverage in independent sources to pass WP:GNG and therefore be notable enough for its own standalone article. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC 144

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The event took place over three months ago and all of the sources are either from before or the days after the event and are just the routine reporting of additions to the bill or reporting of the results. Mt king  (edits)  04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, sound more like a license plate number than an event. UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't removed from the encyclopedia per opinions about that the topic's title sounds like. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per, , , , . Also per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Northamerica1000(talk) 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every sports event will pass WP:GNG, but as [{WP:NOT]] is policy, for this event to be included it needs to demonstrate enduring notability. Mt  king  (edits)  09:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG > WP:NOT.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to the appropriate annual omnibus article. Having articles like this is like having articles for every week in an NFL season. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or like having articles for every specific season of individual NFL teams. Oh wait, those exist. Beansy (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or merge to 2012 in UFC events. The article seems to primarily contain only routine coverage of fight results. There is really no well-sourced prose, as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT, to establish why this event is/was notable.  Appears there may be non-MMA sources covering the event, but they aren't being used to establish notability of the event.  If the article had prose written up and became more in line with UFC 94 or UFC 140 there would be more !vote of keep, IMO.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes.  See here, for example.  I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)   Striking comments from sock of indef blocked user--TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per rationale provided over at WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_149:_Aldo_vs._Koch_(2nd_nomination). In brief, there is currently a much larger discussion about WP:MMAEVENTS which is likely to be going to WP:MEDCAB and trying to act unilaterally to remove these articles in spite of that is disruptive to that process. I can't help but speculate this looks like a last ditch attempt by a partisan editor to avoid a consensus and bully a viewpoint through before dispute resolution can be brought to bear (just my observations of the discussion over at WP:MMANOT). - Rushyo  Talk  17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per mtking. 107.16.78.114 (talk, contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)  Striking comments from blocked sock Mt  king  (edits)  23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. UFC events do not fail WP:EVENT as MMA is not a routine sporting event.  And as stated above, notability is not temporary and the timing of sources is irrelevant.  The event was notable then, and still is now. Zeekfox (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails routine, fails coverage, fails notability, fails everything. Portillo (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Because a world title in a top organization was defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep In Japan, Quinton fails weight, title contention, numbered event. Also, the proposers proposed reasons for failing is failing. This is not a sport event, it's an entertainment show that can be bought as PPV or on DVD at a later date. In my opinion, the classification is used wrong and UFC events should be classified differently. I didn't see the policy of "not statbook" beeing thrown this time, but it has earlier, and that is true. These pages tend to be "just a statbook". However, the Omnibus is *also* a statbook. The proposed solution to remove all UFC pages (numbered) to one page is beyond all reasonable reason. It has been said "it's just to save the UFC pages from deletion", but I truly fail to see how the Omnibus is going to save the information! The UFC 27 page is already lost. I see no end to this. Mazter00 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being; there is currently a RfC regarding the notability of MMA events. The topic passes WP:GNG and I feel the ongoing discussion regarding the handling of these events should take place in the relevant venues rather than taking these articles to AfD. Respectfully request that nominator withdraw nomination(s) until the RfC/MEDCAB/etc has concluded. None but shining hours (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article meets notability requirements due to having a championship belt for the largest MMA organization in the world on the line. Additionally, it's yet another of the rubber stamp AfD's being nominated by MtKing, who has clearly established himself as an anti-MMA deletionist SPA.  He should be removed from this issue because his bias and unwillingness to listen to what anyone else has to say has been clearly established by now.Pull lead (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)  Note: This editor was unlocked from a indef block on the conduction they refrain from trolling and attacks, they were re-blocked after this edit. See here and here  Mt  king  (edits)  21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT. BearMan998 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * a. UFC is not a league, b. it has about one championship event every three weeks not the one a year envisaged by the guideline and c. where are the secondary sources that establish that having such a fight makes the event notable. Mt  king  (edits)  04:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the UFC is a league and is the top league in MMA right now. Additionally, championships for each weight class are not defended every 3 weeks, instead they are in fact defended closer to the 1 year time frame like you just stated. BearMan998 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This only shows how Mtking has no idea on what is UFC or MMA . Evenfiel (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I said this the last time this article was brought up for deletion just before it was withdrawn, and I'll point to it again: the Japan Times source cited in the article establishes the event's lasting notability. It absolutely passes WP:NOT. I'd appreciate it if this comment wasn't deleted this time. Beansy (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment was deleted, too? Let's hope whoever's doing it doesn't keep violating WP:TALKO. Agent00f (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per first half of Rushyo. Nom is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). A compromise of merge to 2012 in UFC events is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

MERGE All Similar AfDs. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all have very similar contents, same AfD arguments and same users making them. The fact that I have to copy/paste this several times is evidence enough. The procedure for multiple deletions should be used to nominate, say, all UFC events instead of one by one. Doing them individually seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least by doing noms all at once the space can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that it's left in. TL;DR: 200 nom >> 1 nom, just do the 1 for all applicable pages so everyone can move on. The objection to this has already been answered at nom for ufc 149. Agent00f (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per, , , , . Also per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually they don't, as each of them is either a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source (WP:GNG requires secondary sources) or is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event. Mt  king  (edits)  20:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a recommendation not a requirement, and not for events that happened just a couple months ago or whatnot, since secondary sources here refers to "information originally printed elsewhere". Tons of articles across a wide range of subjects don't have secondary subjects. Beansy (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted."  It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players.  Mt  king  (edits)  06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't similar to high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero  05  07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mtking, you still introduced "secondary sources" as an argument here despite it being inherently inapplicable. We should stick to arguments that actually apply don't you think? Beansy (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Event was notable, significant media coverage, still has long-lasting impact (Event where Henderson reached his title and furthermore, Henderson and Edgar are scheduled to fight again). UFC events have never been a problem before and now they are much bigger than in the previous years. I don't see why it became a problem all of the sudden. I honestly think that a small group of people is starting these debates with the sheer goal of accumulating edits in detriment of improving the encyclopedia. --Loukinho (talk) 20:10, 30 May 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.