Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the primary routine sources quoted just cover the announcements of who is going to appear which NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is no attempt in the article to demonstrate what the lasting significance of this event will be, there will I have no doubt be 10 winners and 10 looser of 10 fights listed but beyond that any significance is pure speculation. For the avoidance of doubt this nomination has nothing to do with the events notability or not, as a professional sports event, meeting the WP:GNG is not in doubt, however that is no guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article in an encyclopedia if, as in this case, it fails the inclusion policy. Mt  king (edits) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply. As Odie stated in another AfD discussion, it exists to prevent people to copy from their newspaper. And it do passes the "inclusion policies".
 * An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. - A number one contender will emerge, so the event has a lasting effect.
 * Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. - Event has received coverage in Brazil, England, North America, Australia... --LlamaAl (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment If the event will result in a number one contender, that is not explained at all in the article. Even if this were true, I'm not sure it would make the entire event notable enough for its own article.  International coverage does not denote notability, it's the depth of that coverage. Coverage thus far seems to be the usual reporting of matches as they are announced by the UFC or otherwise leaked.  Additionally, the article cites no non-MMA media/websites as sources.  Thus far the article is failing WP:SPORTSEVENT in that it doesn't have much in the way of "well sourced prose" which would go into the background of the important fights that will be on the card.  This event would seem to me to be a good candidate to start 2013 in UFC on FX events.  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep We don't need to wait until the day of the event to create the article.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just another page that the disgruntled Mtking wants to remove. The event will have lasting significance, and the main event could possibly determine the next top contender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.73.246 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Regarding lasting effect, the specific text says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." As thus, an event that is not at least several months old should not be eligible for deletion on those grounds according to that criteria. Furthermore "primary" sources is only listed in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in the context that " Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source." That is entirely inapplicable here. Furthermore the only section that appears to be potentially applicable in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is section 2, News Reports, but it specifically makes a contrast to Wikinews which is literally emulating a newspaper and reporting on things daily. Adding information to an event article as more information emerges over a period of months is quite different from creating entirely new articles for each new piece of information. As such per the text of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER I do not see how WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here as a criteria for deletion either. Beansy (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, CRYSTAL, NOTNEWSPAPER, coverage is routine, not notable. -- No  unique  names  07:11, 31 December 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.