Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155


 * 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 delete. The delete camp makes a policy-based argument based on WP:NOT that I have to allocate substantial weight to in comparison to the keep side, which relies only on notability. Notability does not guarantee that an article should be kept, it only establishes minimum eligibility. I also find the "walled garden" arguments extremely persuasive: it appears that the "keep" side of this debate wishes to have this sport treated substantially different from all other similar endeavours, but makes no compelling argument beyond their fondness for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This yet to happen event fails the WP:NOT policy, it is sourced only to routine sports announcements none of which detail what will be the lasting significance of this event. It will be one of countless hundreds of televised and reported on sports events that take part on the last weekend of the year around the globe. Mt king  (edits)  02:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

for christ sake mtking! its the heavyweight title fight! it will determine the best heavyweight fighter in the world. Just because you cant understand it doesnt mean its not worthy! its pretty clear that you are a bit childish and not happy that you didnt get your own way previously. We are not talking some small event in a tiny 10 person town that has no credibility. this is the largest and arguably the most important UFC event of the year. All the "deletion" and making "one page for all 2012 events" crap that you and your witch hunting mates did a while back ruined wiki as an well presented resource for ufc events. It seemed like it was back on track for quite a while and now your in here trying to ruin it again. Go and find something useful to do with your time & stop trying to wreck something that is a great resource and has been working well for ages. if you dont like UFC, thats fair enough but dont come on these pages just to make trouble! regards josh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.212.219 (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — 219.90.212.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP is an Encyclopedia it is not a sports results service, have you got a reliable and independent source for the claim that it will "determine the best heavyweight fighter in the world" because all I see is a plan for a fight between two contracted UFC fighters, there is no indication that the fight will be anything other than routine with a winner and a loser, likehood it will be all forgotten about come the next event except by die-hard fans, the fansites and the MMA blogosphere. Mt  king  (edits)  02:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the relevant part of WP:NOT has not been explained in this regard. Apart from which "countless hundreds of televised and reported sports events" is a misnomer in the regard for an event to determine the heavyweight champion of the world. Given UFC's effective monopoly on mixed martial arts, which seperates it from boxing and a reliance on Ring rankings, the fight between the two individuals who are indeed contracted UFC fighters are also the current top ranked heavyweights in the world. It is a misappropriation to claim that a heavyweight championship fight is of no notability unless you extend that the championship, fighters, and organisation are non-notable. –– Lid(Talk) 07:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWSPAPER, there is no indication that this or the majority of prior UFC events achieve anything like the standard of non-routine coverage in reliable sources that the rest of the community accept as demonstrating notability for events, for example far more people will attend each of the NFL games held that weekend, watch them live on TV than will attend and watch this live and this is the curial part more written about them in world wide sports media than will be about this event (the same goes for most of the world wide soccer leagues) none of them will be deemed notable as the coverage will be routine. The same is true of this, while the MMA Fan-site and the MMA blogosphere continue to bloviate about it, nothing that WP would consider a WP:RS will have any significant coverage on it other than the routine reporting of the results. Mt  king  (edits)  08:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say that pages like this for MMA events are incredibly valuable to the MMA community and I for one, constantly use them for reference. Mtking, your personal 'non-notability' crusade (backed by Portillo, a friend of yours?) is damaging Wikipedia's reputation amongst MMA fans and I don't understand why the policy has changed AGAIN. You are devaluing the hard work of a community of people, for the sole reason that you and a select few others find every single MMA event not noteworthy. Aqueously (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Portillo is just parodying the deletionists. However, this happens to be a case akin to Poe's Law where it's hard to tell the difference. Agent00f (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pot Meet Kettle. Please desist from making assertions as to editors motivations. Hasteur (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Portillo is an MMA content editor who's spoken to his own intentions before. Otherwise it would be difficult to discern indeed. If folks would stop speaking on matters they have zero knowledge of, this entire charade would've never started in the first place. Agent00f (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:RS as numerous mainstream sports and news organizations have and will be reporting on the event, as it contains arguably the most anticipated rematch in recent combat sports history as well as a number of fights make it one of the best cards in recent memory. Here is one of many so-called "fan sites" that agrees Also, these so-called "fan sites" do qualify as reliable under WP:RS and WP:SOURCES. They are considered reliable my most anyone that knows and understands the sport, they don't have a history of misrepresentation or false reporting, their content is not user-edited and they are independant of the organizations they cover. The article itself passes WP:GNG as well for all the reasons listed above. If any UFC article deserves a standalone Wiki page it's this one. Oh, and here are a few different sources that show the headline fight will determine the No. 1 heavyweight MMA fighter in the world.     Luchuslu (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per Reason #2 of WP:SK. It's a notable event with a heavyweight title bout, period. This discussion is completely unnecessary and the campaign to rid Wikipedia of UFC articles is getting old. Can we get an admin to close this, please? -- NINTENDUDE 64 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep MtKing I thought you gave up this nonsense? Well here we go again. It passes because the Heavyweight Championship is being fought for in the biggest MMA organization on the planet. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Poison Whiskey (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources establishing notability and not hard to find. Many have been mentioned already. -- Lo uk ⟟n ho  ≟ 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It makes Wikipedia in business to have all of the UFC events on here. Every event is notable and I search through here many times a week. If you are going to use the argument that it is a routine fight that won't be remembered, then delete all of the pages for the World Series, NBA Finals, Nascar Races, SuperBowls, College Bowl Games, etc. My point is that these are all great resources and I actually use all of these sports pages (except Nascar) extremely frequently. It doesn't hurt you to have it on here so stop complaining! Corbin630 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is ridiculous, if these pages stay removed then it sets a precedent for hundreds of other sporting events to also be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.163.10 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)  — 86.179.163.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Here is a quote from MtKing, even he agrees that when the UFC has a title fight, there should a wikipedia page for the card. Hypocrisy at it's finest:


 * "I have a question for you, as you see on Talk:List of professional sports leagues I support your position to an extent, but why have you made MMA your personal crusade to eliminate it off of Wikipedia? Just curious as the whole MMA debate is starting to bleed over into pages that I keep an eye on and I want to know whether it is worth my time wading into the argument on them. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't accept your primes that it is a crusade, the simple fact that for a long time MMA has operated in a walled garden, using WP as a database of sports results, the foray on to Talk:List of professional sports leagues was as a result of an AfD argument that as it is included in that list, every time the UFC holds an event that has a championship match as they are a sports leagues they should have an article for the event. If you want other background have a look at ANI and it's archives. Mtking (edits) 02:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)"


 * I think this settles it right here MtKing. Your crusade failed 5 months ago, it's gunna fail again, all we have to do is use your own words against you, give it up bud. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should reread that as it is clear that I am not saying what you think I am. Mt  king  (edits)  07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - does not have significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources; acts as promotion for an event that has not yet happened, and has not yet received enough coverage to satisfy notability requirements. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:FANCRUFT/WP:PROMO, and possibly WP:NOT -- No  unique  names  05:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - please, read WP:CRYSTAL carefully. UFC 155 is a scheduled event, not unverifiable speculation. The sources are all reliable and dozen others can be found. The event is also about to happen. Poison Whiskey (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please re-read ALL of WP:CRYSTAL carefully. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Specifically take a look at subpoint 5.  Again the same selective quoting from one camp who decide to only respect (parts of) policies/guidelines only when it supports their position. Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. Has multipe sources, including news and sports sources. Rehash of an argument that ended with UFC pages reinstated. Pages are just deleted without information being retained. Autokid15 (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has many sources, it's going to happen unless the world ends on December 21st, and we have articles on the other 154 UFC Main Events. This isn't ITN, we're not deciding whether something is notable enough next to other events during the same time period. If you want to eliminate all the MMA event articles, this isn't the forum for that. The Moose   is loose ! 07:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment To address all those that say "Keep, it has sources it's going to happen, there is a title fight... etc" just to be clear here, the nomination is based on this article failing WP:NOT, specificity the "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and to date, here, and at the article the only sources are of that routine type, which means the event is not suitable for it's own stand alone page in the encyclopedia. Mt  king  (edits)  07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote from WP:NOT - "If a topic has received significant coverage (Yes) in reliable sources (Yes) that are independent of the subject (Yes), it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Luchuslu (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read that page at that text does not appear on it. Mt  king  (edits)  19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He probably refers to WP:N rather than WP:NOT. Poison Whiskey (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mtking, all Luchuslu did was give his opinion on why this article is notable based on the WP:N general notable guide Autokid15 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I did mean WP:N. Luchuslu (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment To address all those that say delete, WP:NOT DOES allow sporting events to be written, as long as they're written objectively, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Crystal Ball also allows for future events to be written as long as they are not speculative or unverifiable. MtKing could also included the ENTIRE quote, and not just the part that says no articles to be written on sports, or celebrities: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This articles are not being reported as "breaking news." Now, there is another quote that could be taken out of context which would also lead one to believe MMA/UFC/Sporting articles should deleted, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." However, that sentence is refering to writing articles as diaries, which has also not happened. Writing objective, neutral POV articles on UFC events is not breaking news, and is not a diary; so it has every right to have it's own articles. But, even if they were strictly against Wikipedia rules, then why deleted the information without retaining any? Why just delete pages without including the information on the page where it is being redirected? Autokid15 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Carpet Bomb Delete from High Altitude It's the same arguments over and over again. Precedent, policy, and guidelines say that the current article is unsustainable. MMA enthusiasts claim every exception in the book to justify keeping the article. Striping away the speculative facts all we have is when and where the event is going to be located.  Given that this is several weeks away a blurb in a list article would have been sufficent. Until the MMA enthusiasts decide to play within the lines of the sandbox following the rules that everyone is required to follow, they should be prohibited from using Wikipedia for advocacy of MMA events. Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are currently articles for the next five Super Bowls should these be deleted as well? Also, what exactly is speculative?  This is a planned event with a date, location and planned fights that have signed contracts. The information is not based on guesses and rumors. Noahco (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Noahco (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Checkuser blocked by Elen of the Roads
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? The reason why articles for those exist is because there's plenty of verifyable and citable facts in those cases, being tended by a wikiproject that has guidelines giving reasonable inclusion criteria, and is being covered by sources outside the space of the individual sport.  I am somewhat uncomfortable with 51 due to the fact that there's not a lot of content on the page. Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wasn't saying that it should exist because they exist, just for clarification one how they are different. When you say "sources outside the space of the individual sport" do ESPN, USA Today, and other non UFC sources not count?  If not what is required by you to be considered an acceptable source? Noahco (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at this article as it currently stands we have 4 references that go to MMAJunkie (which has been shown to not be a reliable source), 1 that goes to MMAWeekly (which has also been shown to not be a reliable source), and one that goes to Sherdog (also not a reliable source). All of these sources specialize in MMA coverage, and therefore aren't really the level and breadth of coverage we want for a article.  If ESPN, USA Today, and non-UFC sources cover the primary subject of the article (the event itself, not any of the fighters or single boughts) in more than a single paragraph then it lends the weight to the notability of the subject.  A passing mention of "This event will occur on DATE at LOCATION" is the type of routine news coverage that is covered by many portions of WP:NOT and WP:N. Most of these arguments have been made over and over again at various locations (WikiProject MMA, WP:MMANOT, Notability Noticeboard, AfDs, WP:ANI, etc.) Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As further evidence that the deletionist's ignorance of the subject matter hinders competent reasoning on this matter, note that "mmajunkie.com", which is supposedly "not reliable", is a property of USA Today, ironically listed as a reliable source. This can be trivially seen on the bottom of their website: "Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties" (ie a matter of branding), which the deletionists appear to not visited before declaring their conclusion on its legitimacy. It's a good thing that this statement is recorded for posterity so it can be referenced latter. Agent00f (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment about sources - Here are some related articles from Globo.com: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4. I'm sure that they'll help, but they're all in portuguese. I'm busy on other stuff now, but i'll take any useful info from them later. Poison Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All of those are the same "routine coverage" announcements that are listed in the MMA sources. It's a 2 pronged test. First being "Is it covered outside of the community of suporters/boosters?", second is "Does it rise above the typical level of reporting for this event?" Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it seems like UFC 155 passes both of those tests. It is an event that is covered outside of the community since it is covered by sports and news media, not just MMA sources.  It also rises above the typical level of reporting for MMA events, most MMA events don't receive national coverage. Noahco (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are significantly mistaken. The only reference at this time that is outside of the MMA community is the Globo one which indicates the standard "This fight is on" coverage that is typical for the event. The remainder are MMA specialty sites that are not discriminating in their coverage (as been proven many times over at other locations including WP:RSN). It may be important, but to use a collary, would you expect to see an article about the world championship of underwater basket weaving for 2012?  The information we have at this time (and every other time we have to belabor this debate) is not enough for an outsider to judge the lasting effect that this event may have. Regardless of the "Do no Harm" suggestion, having these poor quality articles remain in article space in the premiere compendium of knowledge is an offense to the effort and work that is represented in the Featured and Good Articles. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Typical for a major UFC event maybe but not for a typical MMA event. That's like saying all of the buzz before a Super Bowl is typical of Super Bowls so they do not warrant an article.  USA Today, ESPN, Bleacher Report, and Opposing Views all have articles about the event that go beyond the fight card.  Also, I didn't realize that Underwater Basket Weaving gets 450,000 PPV buys and is done in front of a crowd of 17k.  I can see an argument for UFC on FX or UFC on FuelTV events to be grouped together in one page but major UFC events have more than enough importance to have their own page. Noahco (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NOTRELIABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.[6] Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." These websites do not follow these standards and thereby can be considered quality sources. These websites do not have reputation for bad fact-checking, and while they do include editorial opinions and speculative rumours, they are usually not used as sources (and if they are, should be removed and not have the article deleted). These sources are also not extremist, promotional or rely on opinion. MMAJunkie, sherdog try and report MMA as objective as possible; Bleacherreport is an example of a website that is an opinionated questionable source. And yes Hasteur, if underwater basket weaving has enough interest and national/international coverage (including sources), then yes they do deserve their own pages. Autokid15 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agent00f brought up a great point in another debate that MMAJunkie was acquired by a seperate non-MMA focused news source in USA Today. MMAJunkie also won a "Best Media Source Award" recently. Autokid15 (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed the whole section of MMAJunkie dedicated to what it calls "Rumors" so that would not be a RS then. Mt  king  (edits)  23:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because a website has a page for upcoming events call, "rumours" does NOT mean every even on there is a rumour. The event has since been officially announced by the UFC and has been commented on by multiple sources, which includes TSN, ESPN, USA Today (MMA Junkie, but not the rumours section), UFC, Sports Illustrated, amongst other sources. If you click on ANY of the links for the "rumours" page, you would see MMA Junkie goes further by citing other websites on the progress of the event and includes an asterisk to see if it is still a rumour or officially announced. Autokid15 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's perhaps even more amusing is that any of the "reliable" sources listed above generally have some sort of society page dedicated to far less substantiated personal rumors about manufactured celebrities such as the latest contestants on America's Top Model. Just observe the silence when this plain fact is pointed out, only for the same dishonesty about MMA sources to be repeated at some later time. Agent00f (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is pretty desperate, yet par for course. It's rather the point of *investigative* journalism to uncover news, not simply parrot off the AP/KR wire. So the real question here is why are folks who apparently have no understanding of how journalism works making arguments about sources in the first place. Agent00f (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This is just more of the same failed BS continued from months ago by the same couple of people. As simple evidence of their bad faith, consider MtKing's comment on this page, which tries to justify deleting the main list of MMA/UFC events because it's "over 80kb long". Those familiar with this matter know all too well that not a few month back the same couple editors supported a campaign to consolidate/cram dozens of pages' contents to >500K sizes, resulting in incredibly inconvenient use. The shameless disingenuous intent here is plain for all to see. Agent00f (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agent00f, that is a personal attack against myself and MtKing. You've been warned multiple times regarding personal attacks, especially in making assumptions about other editors intentions.  Strike it immediately or I will be forced to take you to ANI to review your continued and persistent personal attacks against those who do not agree with you in respect to MMA articles. Your previous RfC/U and multiple trips to ANI should have indicated that this behavior is unacceptable, and knowing the mind of ANI currently I know that the tollerance for personal attacks has not increased. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a statement of basic historical facts, which is evident given that no one is refuting its accuracy nor have they ever. It's also notable that this editor Hasteur initiated those previous political attacks against me (ie projection of own behavior on others), all of which have failed; this only strengthens the claims of absolutely shameless behavior, which again note is not refuted or even denied. Agent00f (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * same failed BS, same couple of people, same couple editors supported a campaign to consolidate/cram,shameless disingenuous intent here is plain for all to see. All of these are personal attacks, Ad-Hominem attacks, and assumptions of bad faith.  Your RFC/U again is proof that not just my projection of my own behavior.  I was just sick and (Redacted) tired of having to belabor every last single nit of a point on every single event that was and may yet be for MMA articles. Political attacks are not a prohibited behavior.  Personal attacks are. I ask again Will you be reasonable and strike the personal attacks that have been identified?  Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that the previous deletions attempts (and personal politics waged against me like the RFC/U started by you), all of which resulted in no net change, were initiated by the same couple people are simple facts; facts whose truth that no one denies. It's also a fact that reality tends to reflect poorly on this sort of behavior. Given that this editor cannot seems to discern the trivial difference between objective facts and personal attacks, his opinions which necessarily predicate on this understanding carries zero weigh. Agent00f (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agent00f, where I do agree with your POV, please don't turn the debate into a personal attack on Mtking and Hasteur, there are better more impactful ways to get your point across by accessing the notability pages on wikipedia. Hasteur, stop exacerbating things and threaten/taunt users; it's only making things worse. Now, please let's keep things on topic Autokid15 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, not all reality reflects well on all people. This is simply how the world/nature works, and should not be confused with specific logical fallacies. Please read the description of an ad hominem if this isn't clear. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep! If the ufc 155 page with the biggest fight of the year gets deleted, then all of the other ones should be gone as well. What was the result of all of the previous ranting by mtking and others and why is ufc 155 being targeted now? Mtking whether you like it or not, MMA is becoming a recognised sport among more than just die hard fans and the ufc is also becoming know as a MMA promotion to all types of people. Being on FOX is proof of that. They wouldnt pick something up that didnt have broad appeal and was only targeted at "die hard" fans. There is coverage from sites other than the mma blogosphere as you call it... Mirror this yahoo link speaks about the current heavy weight champions previous fight Yahoo ESPN Sportsmole USATODAY LATIMES Toronto Sun

10:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC) regards josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.198.180 (talk)
 * Nothing to do with the notability of the sport, association football is notable not every international soccer game is notable enough for an article, the same is true for every MLB, NFL, EPL, AFL game which are covered by countless news sources, far more than any MMA event. Each of thoes sources are just routine reporting on a sports event and that is exactly what this event is, just a routine sports event. Mt  king  (edits)  10:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So you obviously dont accept or understand the level of event this is. You didnt respond to my question... what was the result of your previous efforts to derail the use of wiki as a reference for the largest MMA events in the world?

regards josh 182.239.198.180 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the substantive coverage that I'm seeing is coming from unreliable sources.  Do mmajunkie.com and the other source websites have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?  As simple websites, we can't assume that they're reliable, unlike things like smaller newspapers that aren't well known but that have been around for a long time.  Let's wait until we get coverage in books and/or academic journals, or substantial coverage in media sources that we know to be reliable.  Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've improved the article and added 2 more sources that meets WP:SOURCES and WP:IS. Just to clarify, MMAJunkie and MMAWeekly are not related to the UFC directly, but to MMA in general. And yes, they have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Poison Whiskey (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - You guys never grow tired of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for keeping. You guys (MMA boosters) ever get tired of being excited about this months "Most Epicest Faceoff of All History in the past and future"? Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, please keep this debate civil and do not use personal attacks or I will be forced to take WP:ANI actionAutokid15 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof of said Personal attack or retract your statement. I was parodying the IP address in addition to several of the typical keep reasonings. Based on your percieved PoV (suporting MMA) do you really think it is wise to be standing up on the soapbox proclaiming yourself to be a paragon of WikiVirtue? Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL U MAD, keep fighting this losing battle, friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My stance on MMA should not in any way conflict with the objective arguments within this debate, I try and keep things civil. If you would like an example, I would be glad to show it. Your argument, " You guys (MMA boosters) ever get tired of being excited about this months "Most Epicest Faceoff of All History in the past and future"?" is statement that falls under the category of Ad Hominem within the WP:WIAPA or the No Personal Attack page. This is because your statement generalizes the other side of the debate and making your point personal to the other users. As soon as you said "You guys (MMA boosters)" you made the argument personal and generalized the person you're debating against. Your reply was not constructive in any way to the statement (even though the statement was also not constructive and was opinionated), regardless what the OP said. Let's keep this debate civil, objective and on topic. Autokid15 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It now seems that the debate is more of, why include MMA articles on individual events and how are they notable? Firstly, if this is the issue, then these articles should have NOT been nominated for deletion, but rather have a tag placed on them so EDITORS can verify this information; deleting information can be classified as vandalism. Secondly, there seems to be an issue of the use of sources, which puzzles me. Wikipedia defines questionable sources as, "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." MMAJunkie, Sherdog, TSN, ESPN, Globo, and other websites are not extremist or promotional in any nature. These sources are sporting and mixed martial artist websites written by paid professionals and are not extremist or promotional in ANY nature. Wikipedia also says that reliable sources are published sources, meaning that articles from the preceeding websites can be classified as reliable. One of the few times that these are not reliable is when the source used sources the wikipedia article for it's own source, which other than some Bleacher Report articles, the preceeding websites do not conflict with. Even if these sources were completely unreliable, the first steps that SHOULD have been taken were the  and then merging these articles together into one omnibus. This was tried earlier this year and failed, the resulting articles were then promoted to their own pages again. This was simply because the size created was ineffective more many users, causing long loading times, especially considering that it was almost conflicting with Wikipedia's 2048 kilobytes size limit. When it comes to notability to the individual events, means they must have met the general notability guide that Luchuslu was trying to say. Generally, the notability should be questioned if the article is "breaking-news" or written as a diary. Rather, these articles have been written objectively. Any other is argument is subjective and wikipedia warns not to rush to delete this articles. Even if you have a problem with the sources, wikipedia says that "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." This means that if you should NOT rush to delete, purely based on sources and notablility. Considering that these articles affect a wide social group, have multiple sources and is reported on both nationally and internationally; these articles have every right to be on wikipedia. However, if you still have an issue, please do not rush to delete as this is only doing more harm to wikipedia than good and there are more civil approcahes to get your side heard, remember there are less detrimental and lazy alternatives than just deleting these pages. Autokid15 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Luchuslu (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion is the only solution left after trying the other routes to retain said content. It has been tried multiple times to merge content into a reasonable index if it is not viable as a stand alone.  It has been tried multiple times to get some sort of minimum standard about what qualifies a individual event for the notability threshold for Wikipedia. It has been tried multiple times to convince editors to conform with Wikipedia's policies/guidelines/rules.  The editors who (collectively or not) know that by raising a sockpuppet/meatpuppet army can defeat any discussion of removing/refactoring MMA content by sheer numbers ensures that the status quo remains exactly where they want it. Deletion is one of the few places where the strength of the argument (and it's grounding in WP policy) is ensured to win out over the count of !voteers who can be canvassed/socked. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous efforts by the same couple editors all focused on deleting/restricting as much content as possible or rendering results which make usage incredibly inconvenient, which is exactly why it failed over and over again. This time is no different, and the arguments are basically a completely rehash with nothing new added. So it's a simple matter of fact that the deletionist methodology here is "if at first, second, and third you don't succeed, shop shop again". Agent00f (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eggxactly! Hasteur can try to cll a penis a bannana all he wants, but ask any sexually experienced adult and they will tell you it is not the same thing...not by a Califonia mile!  So, because there is no real reason for deletion, he'll just continue to make things up as he goes.  My guess is he and Mtking were so embarassed when the tried MMA, that they now have it out for th sport and since they cannot do diddly with their fists in real life, they hide behind keyboards all full of themselves only to fail here as well.  --Nurple is the New Purple (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)  Blocked Sock.  Mt  king  (edits)  03:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW as no account has used a valid policy based reason for deletion. Yes, we see Mtking and his meat-puppet account Hasteur spouting the usual dishonest gibberish, but no legitimate account has, nor could they offer anything even remotely approaching a respectable reason for deletion.  As such, it is plainly evident to all with a brain that Hasteur and Mtking are in clear violation of WP:DICK, WP:TEND, WP:TROLL, and WP:VANDAL.  If nothing else, keep per WP:IAR, because frankly deletion is flat out idiotic in this case.  Removing sourced content about a notable topic provides no benefit to anything and is in fact detrimental per WP:SENSE.  Thus, the only option here is to speedy keep and ban Hasteur and Mtking from future MMA related discussions. --Nurple is the New Purple (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)  Blocked Sock.  Mt  king  (edits)  03:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please, keep the debate in good faith. If you want to refute Mtking and Hasteur's points, please look at the notability page on wikipedia, especially on events. Thank-you Autokid15 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The same arguments have already been repeated ad infinitum over a year or so, but that evidently doesn't cease these low cost annoying AfDs from being initiated over and over so it's unclear why it's implied that repeating them yet again will stop the problem. Agent00f (talk) 22:20, 6 November 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.