Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 147


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 147

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC) *delete fails notability sports, and WP:CRYSTAL Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC) !vote removed so other discussion can proceed Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * keep offers both technical details of events (fighters/location/date) and contextual information about fighters removed or added to card and why, extra details of note that add more value to a fan's understanding of match-ups and the event as a whole - I would say this for all UFC event articles, generally - which become more informative after the event has taken place with additional details easily missed even if one watched the show live. Helsworthy 14:22, 30 April 2012 (EST)


 * NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 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.