Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger


 * 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. -- Lear's Fool 06:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger

 * – ( View AfD View log )

as per WP:CRYSTAL, this event hasn't even occurred. fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This event has been confirmed by multiple sources, and has been officially announced by the UFC and Bud Light.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Existing doesn't make something notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop being sperglords. It's a major UFC event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.108.140 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * all the sources are kickboxing related. how about something independent? LibStar (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are from sites that cover MMA news, not kickboxing news (at least from what I saw). The independent clause of WP:GNG says, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator".  The subject in this case is "UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger" and it's creator is the Ultimate Fighting Championship.  Coverage outside of UFC, its press releases and its promotional material is independent by my interpretation of WP:GNG.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, noted. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nomination seems based on a misunderstanding of policy. There is sufficient coverage to pass WP:N.  An event that is scheduled to happen, almost certainly will happen, and has received coverage in sources (so that the article can actually say something) does not fail WP:Crystal.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see coverage in mainstream media. it's all fighting sources mainly reporting that the event will happen rather than anything indepth. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I also believe the nomination seems based on a misunderstanding of policy. I have tried to discuss this misunderstanding with the nominator, but could not get a constructive discussion going to illustrate that martial arts references can be "independent of the subject" since the subject is an event, not an entire sport. Multiple references are available to support the notability of this event. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. While the sources aren't much, they meet the meager standard for GNG, are sufficiently independent of the fight organization, and accurately assess what is going on at the event. Normally I'd agree with User:LibStar about the crystal ball, but the sources specifically establish the venue, the sponsor, and the draw match, so notability is satisfied and the event is very likely to occur, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply in this case. Whether the event is sufficiently notable is the topic of this discussion. It appears consensus is yes. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (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.