Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fighter Rankings


 * 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. North America1000 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

UFC Fighter Rankings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article consists of current UFC rankings and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Article needs constant updating and fails to show significant independent coverage. This would be the same as having an article on the current college football rankings--it needs constant updating and doesn't show why that ranking is notable. I'm sure there are plenty of passing mentions of these rankings, such as "he's currently ranked ninth in the UFC lightweight division" but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. These aren't even world rankings, just rankings of a particular promotion.Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SAL, doesn't meet any qualifications for existing lists. This is basically a carbon-copy of information found on this promotion's website, so possibly even a borderline-WP:COPYVIO. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete For the above two reasons. Wikipedia does not exist to be a site mirror.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I never would have thought of this as a copyright violation. I don't see how an organization's frequently changing rankings confer notability on themselves.  As nom pointed out, there will be plenty of passing mentions of where fighters are ranked, but not necessarily significant and independent coverage of the entire list. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2016 (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.