Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns


 * 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 no contest. There is no serious suggestion that the content should be deleted; merely a discussion, which I beg to suggest is rather puerile, about which title the content should be held at. This discussion should be taken up at the article talk pages and once a consensus is reached, the articles merged; none of this is a matter for AFD. WP:3O can be invoked if there is no consensus, or WP:AN if there is disruption.

The lister is asked to use the approved AFD templates or a listing script to create AFDs in future, as this ensures AFDs are opened in a consistent and machine-readable fashion. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns


Request for speedy deletion. The user again attempt to go around some thing just to create a fork. This the original. There issues need to be resolved! Regice2020 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are being completely disruptive and I start to question your good faith when you've already been told how things usually work here. This page does not apply to speedy deletion anyway, it's a different request if you want to do it. If anybody reads this, I suggest looking at Regice2020's poor management here: Talk:UFC Fight Night 176. It says a lot about what's going on. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated this article for speedy deletion. It is a duplicate of UFC Fight Night 176. Fbdave (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion declined, if it is a duplicate it should redirect to the other article, there are hundreds of articles that link to this page. ~ GB fan 19:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * by way the appropriate way to is to request move for the aritcle, not create a new one by "going around" unresolved issue. As a result, this page shall be deleted no other options. No exceptions. If the unresolved issue was resolved then this afd would not happen at all. Regice2020 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct way was not requesting a move like you did and just change the article. Several people already told you that but you remain stubborn. And now makes even less sense to delete the article. Another day that you amaze us. We hope for the day you stop putting brakes on edits or simply stop disrupting. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Speedy deletion declined, if it is a duplicate it should redirect to the other article, there are hundreds of articles that link to this page" comment was made by an admin in case you haven't noticed. Yet you reverted it. Odd. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect Duplicate articles should redirect to their original copy.-- Rockchalk 717 23:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is consistent with the other UFC on ESPN events in title and information. At this point, the UFN 176 page is covering a different event on a different date, so it is not a replacement for this page. Cepiolot (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is the date different? The articles both refer to a May 30, 2020 date. Fbdave (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * UFN 176 is being used for the content that is supposed to be on UFC Fight Night 176 and that is a different event (June 13). Are you aware of everything happening or just superficial knowledge? Don't see this as aggressive behavior or anything related. It's just that watching Regice2020 I can see that he knows/reads all things but opts to act different than the others. To me it seems that you read things superficially (only Wikipedia articles perhaps?) and then suggests merges based on things he said. I'm just trying to clarify things a bit. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, FBDave even i was not here. Someone had to stop him from taking hasty premature actions without community input. Always try to engage into a edit war to mess it up. If Gsfelipe94 did not do that starting with UFC 249/250 issue then these COVID-19 pandemic naming issues would be resolved easily. No RM and No Merges. Regice2020 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about the deletion of UFC Fight Night 176, not UFN 176. Fbdave (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * UFN 176 refers to the June 13 event (the correct UFC Fight Night 176). The UFC Fight Night 176 article is a duplicate of UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't even seem to know what edit war is, Regice2020. Stop saying things that do not help your opinion and look embarassing. Your argument starts to make even less sense. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge The proper thing to do was to rename the article with its title, not make a new one. --Poomfang (Talk : Contrib) 22:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Request closure. Fbdave (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Request closure deletion closure to see the results, because obviously comments is being looped few rows above..saying that UFC Fight Night Woodley vs Burns article was duplicate of this article when this article is obviously created (after) as a fork around unresolved rm.Regice2020 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still don't know what you're talking about... Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2020 (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.