Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 27


 * 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. Really no content to merge besides a result--and merged where? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC 27

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable; fails WP:EVENT. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete This clearly fails WP:EVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. it is standard sports coverage and stats, non notable, nothing to demonstrate significance, lasting effect, or what makes this even notable.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This unsourced article makes no attempt to explain why this event is encyclopaedic, so fails WP:NOT. Mt king  (edits)  08:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clarly passes WP:EVENT and WP:MMAEVENT due to lasting encyclopedic significance due to undeniable notability of this event.  Consistent with what Wikipedia is.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: One page of results on Sherdog ≠ "encyclopedic significance due to undeniable notability". Do you have some other reason to believe it's notable? bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:FIVEPILLARS ("It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias..." - my emphasis), something covered in an actual published printed encyclopedia that devotes multiple prose paragraphs beyond just results to each event is by definition encyclopedic. The results of this event moreover are not merely covered on Sherdog; indeed other sites provide detailed reviews of the event (for example, here), and even more importantly they are discussed again in prose paragraphs in published books demonstrating their ongoing significance to the history of the notable fighters who participated on this card:, , etc.  To suggest that this event is not encyclopedic is frankly absurd and reflects a lack on knowledge/familiarity with this subject matter and how to research/look for sources per WP:BEFORE.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "UFC Encyclopedia" is not an independent source and having notable fighters doesn't make the event notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Astudent0 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see that meets WP:SENSE. This event is so obviously notable, having to defend it is akin to having to convince someone that we breathe oxygen!  Your non-argument is entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it is an insult to anyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Historical aspects of the event are important (over 10 years ago), but probably would be better served in a "2000 in UFC events" article merged from all the events in that year. In addition article needs at least one cited statement in order to qualify. Article has been on WP for 6 years.  Deletion is not the answer Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no evidence of lasting notability as per WP:EVENT. The little text that supplements the fight results talks doesn't show why this fight card was notable.  There weren't even any championship fights.  If there was an omnibus article like Hasteur mentioned, this article could be put there. Astudent0 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to actually read the individual articles under discussions. You are spamming the same inaccurate copy and paste delete votes across MMA related AfDs.  The event was one from the most significant promotion in the world, featuring a hall of fame fighter in the main event, and is covered in detail in a printed published encyclopedia.  It has been released for home viewing as well.  Something available for home viewing is timeless until all copies of it are destroyed.  It played an important role in the history of the world's most notable MMA promotion and the career of legendary fighters, enough to be one of only a handful of MMA events actually covered in a printed encyclopedia.  The day we don't cover what is in printed encyclopedias is the day Wikipedia ceases to be a serious project.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read the article--you might want to read the policies. The print encyclopedia you keep referring to is the "UFC Encyclopedia", hardly an independent source.  It's unclear how I'm spamming when your link shows that I've been in the minority 0% of the time.  I didn't even know such a program existed--that's pretty impressive for someone who's only been editing for 2 weeks (unless of course you're one of the many MMA sockpuppets we see). Astudent0 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly passes any and all Wikipedia policies. Given that your account's entire history consists of nothing more than saying to delete MMA related articles, you're obviously somebody's sock or meatpuppet.  It seems you and the same few accounts have spammed/vote stacked just about every MMA related discussion over the past few months without doing anything actually useful or demonstrating any actual knowledge of the topics themselves.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete; per above. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM is not a reason for deletion, especially when wrong. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:09, 2 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.