Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night


 * 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 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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC Ultimate Fight Night

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are primary news sources of the routine type any sports event gets that NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". There is no analysis in any of the sources of why the event is in any way encyclopedic. Mt king  (edits)  20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

*Keep and advise topic ban for nominator who is woefully ignorant of MMA as he just copy and pastes the same dishonest boilerplate delete vote across every MMA related article he can find. I don't know if he bombed out in his MMA debut or what, but clearly he's trolling the MMA articles. The article concerns an event that is notable for many reasons: Nate Quarry was the first TUF participant to earn an UFC title shot. Nate Marquardt made his UFC debut and was later tested positive for nandrolone. It was the second-ever UFC event on free television, with the telecast drawing a 1.5 overall rating in the United States. Now perhaps the most laughable part of the nomination is to say that the event is not encyclopedic. For Christ's sake, it appears in multiple published print encyclopedias:, ,etc. What is encyclopedic for multiple printed encyclopedias is certainly encyclopedic for the ultimate paperless encyclopedia. Finally, even in the worst case scenario the nominator offers no reason why the article could not be merged and redirected. Who are we protecting that we would have to red link this article, but keep a discussion about it? Oh, and it is also an insult to these notable fighters to denigrate them and defame them as "non notable". You should be ashamed!! --172.162.38.35 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.162.38.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked for Sock puppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me deal with each of those links one by one and demonstrate why they do not help demonstrate why this event meets WP Policy :
 * The mmamania.com link does not discuss the event, it mentions the event in passing.
 * The mmafrenzy.com link likewise only mentions the event in passing.
 * The two Ivan's Blog's links are firstly from Blogs which WP routinely does not consider as RS, and secondly the title of the blog says it all "Featuring Ivan Trembow's Self-Important, Random Rants on Mixed Martial Arts, Video Games, Pro Wrestling, Television, Politics, Sports, and High-Quality Wool Socks", not what anyone could call a respected publication.
 * The sherdog link is a very good example of what NOTNEWSPAPER calls "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".
 * of the two "published print encyclopedias" one is written by the UFC Editorial Director and is not therefore interdependent, the other "The MMA Encyclopedia" appears to "detail the results of every MMA fight in history" in probably the same way that New York Giants Pride details every game in the New York Giants 2007 season but that does not make each and every game of that season notable enough for a WP entry nor does the The MMA Encyclopedia make every MMA fight or event notable.
 * Mt king  (edits)  18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ivan's Blog archived every MMAWeekly post. MMAWeekly is the second best MMA website. Look here and here. Or ask Ivan Trembow himself.--LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are just trolling us... You are really dismissing multiple printed books and specifically encyclopedias as not indicative of encyclopedic content?!  WTF?!  By what backwards anti-logic does it make sense that Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night is a blue link and UFC Ultimate Fight Night is a red link?  Who on earth does it benefit to keep for public consumption a useless discussion about something, but to get rid of content that is covered in printed encyclopedias, concerns the first televised event of this name, featured major fighters, was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, went on to spawn many follow up events due to its success, influenced the careers of the participants, the network, and the UFC?!  Moreover, these events are not just covered in MMA specific sites. See here as USA Today and other national newspapers that are not MMA specific cover these evnts in detail.  The fact that you are seriously saying to redlink rather than even merge and redirect is just mind-boggling.  We delete jibberish and defamatory stuff.  Can we verify the contents of this article?  Yes!  Is the article jibberish?  No.  Is the article racist, sexist, etc.?  No.  Does it concern a televised event? Yes. Was the event from a major promotion with major fighters?  Yes and yes.  Is the event covered in non-MMA specific sources?  Yes, such as USA Today.  Is the event's subject matter encyclopedic?  Yes, as it is featured in at least two printed encyclopedias available through major retailers.  You frankly have no real argument for red linking and it is borderline offensive to waste our time in this manner. --172.129.97.239 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.129.97.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have no doubt as a sporting event this received lots of coverage in lots of mainstream publications but WP classifies that sort of coverage of sports events as routine (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), that includes such sources that "detail the results of every MMA fight in history" (the MMA Encyclopedia), in order to demonstrate that this article should be in Wikipedia it needs to be demonstrated that it does not fail the WP:NOT policy. Again at the risk of repeating myself, Wikipedia "is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service" (taken from WP:EVENT) and it goes on and says "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article". What is needed here is not the routine sports announcements and results, but sources that detail why this event was significant and what lasting effect it had. If you actually read the article as it exist now, there is not even an un-sourced claim to any significance, all that exists is four lines of text, the results and details of performers wages, so any claim to any lasting significance is not actually reflected in the article. Mt  king  (edits)  09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep — Event is notable, first UFN, second-ever free UFC show, etc. It passes WP:GNG and WP:MMAEVENT. LlamaAl (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying it is notable does not make it so, every professional sports game/match/meet/event gets enough routine coverage in the press to pass WP:GNG, however that does not make the event worthy of encyclopedic note. The sources provided do not demonstrate what sets this event up over the countless other sporting events that happened that Saturday in the rest of the US or world. Mt  king  (edits)  18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying it is not notable does not make it so. This event is notable because it is the first Ultimate Fight NIGHT, the second-ever free show, is from the largest and most significant MMA organziation in the world, featured fights by major athletes, is covered in multiple reliable sources for these reasons, which means if you actually read the sources, it clearly passes the WP:GNG per WP:SENSE.  A once in a blue moon televised event and the first one of its kind is simply not analogous to weekly sporting events.  We are not talking about the NFL which has multiple teams compete every week during a season.  We are talking about the first ever televised event of a league that does not have multiple events a day like the NFL, MLB, NBL et al do.  You are comparing apples to watermellons!!  --172.129.97.239 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue is that the article and subject fails the policy on what is and what is not included on WP, just having enough routine coverage to pass WP:GNG is not a guarantee of a subjects sutability for inclusion as is made clear on the WP:N page when it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.." (my bold), this nomination is based solely on the fact this article fails that "What Wikipedia is not" policy as it does not demonstrate what significance it had outside of those directly involved. Mt  king  (edits)  09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is significant to those uninvolved. Anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

*Over the weekend, I saw the excellent film Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (don't take my word for it, just see it yourself!) and so was feeling pretty good until I stumbled upon this farce here! :( As such, yeah, I agree with a speedy keep of the article and emergency topic ban of Mtking from MMA related AfDs per LlamaA1.  --BStudent0 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — BStudent0 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Block-evading sock of Special:Contributions/63.3.19.129 and sock-puppet of User:Mdtemp (school) as well. See SPI. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

*Keep .. Per all above. Miufus (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Sock-puppet of LlamaAl; see Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG what more is there to discuss. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per everything above. Longterm significance is adequately illustrated in this later review . (First of many, Salaverry's last hurrah). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 411mania is a collection of unpaid blogers (see here) and is not a reliable source. Mt  king  (edits)  07:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)