Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149


 * 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   merge to a place to be decided. Merge into a list of UFC events, and do similarly for all future events (If there isn;pt a suitable one, make one, perhaps by year). Before they take place, the articles will come much too close to promotion to justify separate articles. It seems the clearest basis for deciding. I admit I have no idea what to do with them after they take place--the discussion below gives the relevant factors, but does not reach any clear conclusion; but for future events, the added factor of CRYSTAL and promotion are sufficient to rule out separate articles.  DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 149

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Like Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 was, not notable, not announced, not sourceable by a reliable source, crystal balling. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * UFC 148 and UFC 147 - I would also include these, which have a couple more unreliable sources, but is still not being covered by mainstream outlets thus notability isn't firmly established. Th rush to create these articles before anything is announced isn't helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Because lets be honest, we know they are going to happen, its not like the UFC is going to go bankrupt tomorrow, or stop doing MMA events and only doing ballroom dancing :P. Besides, all the needed GNG standard articles will come out very soon anyway so we are just wasting words here. BigzMMA (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this and UFC 148 and UFC 147, and frankly almost all of them, these just fail WP:EVENT they are not historically significant, they are covered by only routine coverage; WP is an encyclopaedia and not a sports results service. Mt  king  (edits)  23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's true these events will happen, but it's also true that it's hard to see how these events will have the "lasting significance" required by WP:EVENT. That's true of pretty much all MMA events, but good luck trying to get rid of UFC events. Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well the fact is that MMA events simply cannot be compared to other sport like American Football a but more like Boxing as separate promotions that hold events as regularly as possible. Just because a title isn't on the line or something out of the ordinary is happening at one of these events doesn't mean it isn't significant. For example an new major promotion in a country that has never held an MMA event which is hold its first event in the country's capital and is getting a very high number of news sources covering them, both independent from the promotion and the sport itself, the event was being headlined by two very notable fighters. I would consider that a notable event personally, in the same way that UFC 1, Pride 1, BAMMA 1 and many others are notable as par how Temporary for Bonaparte describes it.


 * Keep due to their historical notability per WP:EVENT. Encyclopedias and almanacs do indeed cover sports results, especially ones that do not have paper limitations.  --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)  Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts.
 * Keep This event was announced by credible sources and is notable. Also a fight between Fabricio Werdum and Mike Russow is in the works for UFC 147, so deleting that would not be helpful at all. Glock17gen4 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all UFC events as inherently notable, because not a single UFC event is not covered in multiple sources or does not have historic significance. Period.  --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No they are not - have a read of WP:MMANOT. Mt  king  (edits)  20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol! If you do not think all UFC related events are notable then you do not know what you are talking about and should not be commenting in MMA related discussions.  UFC is THE preeiminet MMA promotion.  Their events are part of the larger history of MMA.  There is even a printed publsihed UFC specific encyclopedia for Christmas's sake!  That's right a book!  What's worthy of devoted an entire book encyclopedia too is worthwhile for a paperless one as well.  --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless that encyclopedia is about UFC 149, your comment has no bearing on this discussion. No one has argued the UFC article should be removed, only that there's no indication that this event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding?!  --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Papaursa, if that was the case then why is this under a Articles for Deletion debate? If you want to prove notability, wait a week or two instead of trying to run this thing under the ground until the next time, which ain't likely for these pages based on their votes. BigzMMA (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No reason is given why this event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, because barring robocalypse or carmegeddon or something, these events will happen, so deleting them now is just a waste and would mean unnecessarily having to start over again. These are article that again barring Raganarock ;0 or something will exist because they concern the leading MMA promotion in our solar system and will have lasting relevance in that ever growing sport's history as a consequence.  If anything, over the coming weeks, more sources will continue to be written about these events.  Their notability is only going to increase!  --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, the notability can't go lower, since it hasn't been established by anything but a rumor. So if the notability changes, it can only go up.  That doesn't change the fact that notability doesn't exist now. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:25, 11 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) 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all three: per MtKing  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic, you actually mean we should keep all three then? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would I mean that? King voted delete on the 6th.  I'm voting delete today  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because an event will occur doesn't make it notable. This will be another article giving just the results and failing WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete UFC 148 and UFC 149, Keep UFC 147 I am extremely hesitant to make this !vote because of the amount of flak I have taken on my user talk page in the last week, which has me very close to becoming an inactive editor as far as the MMA WikiProject is concerned. UFC 147 is the finale of TUF Brazil and I think there is sufficient sources to keep the article (even if it isn't sourced in the UFC 147 or TUF Brazil articles.  I'll provide them if necessary).  UFC 148 and 149, while are all but guaranteed to happen the date, location, and specific fight cards are completely WP:CRYSTAL.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there really any point to this AfD, when you think about it you can set up one for every single UFC event from now till Doomsday and all the past events included, but the fact is that each and every one IS going to stay on Wikipedia whether or not it meets WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE or any of these clearly pointless Wikipedia policies that actually have no effect what-so-ever on keeping or deleting UFC events because they are ALL on here anyway regardless of whatever policies they fail. So I just say why not just rate an event (UFC or any other MMA Promotion's event) based on the type of articles that are out on the event. So for example if they are covered by USA Today and The New York Times in America, the The Sun in Britain, or the Times in India (in India of course) then it has the right to say that it goes beyond routine coverage and is given a higher rating of notability. BigzMMA (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all due to coverage beyond results. It is notable because of who is involved, the amount of coverage, the audience, etc., i.e. it passes WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT with flying colors.  Go Snoopy!  --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all Are these guys really trying to say the UFC isnt notable? All these events were announced by reliable sources. JadeSnake (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the UFC is notable and already has an article. We are saying that not every single thing that they do is notable.  See WP:INHERIT and WP:RS.  Dennis Brown (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'd say a UFC event where fights occur is always gunna be notable. JadeSnake (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the policy I just linked specifically says that this is not true. Specifically Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. meaning you must provide multiple sources from independent sources, or it fails WP:GNG and any subset. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as every UFC event is notable per WP:RS.  --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — 172.130.252.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.