Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to 2012 in UFC events. "Keep" !votes do not establish policy-based reasons for keeping, instead being based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ITEXISTS arguments. Fails WP:MMAEVENT, etc. Information can be merged if desired from article history. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX 4
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication that this MMA Event will be of any historical or encyclopaedic lasting effect, the coverage to date is clasical routine announcement of the event. - Fails WP:MMAEVENT. Mt king  (edits)  08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This event has been announced on the UFC website, is notable and covered by multiple sources Glock17gen4 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into 2012 in UFC events or 2012 in UFC on FX events or just UFC on FX events . The article itself contains simple fight announcements and thus fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT.  There is nothing to suggest that the event will have any lasting effects on its own.  Merging into an article discussing events of similar type (like I currently have in my sandbox) is a good alternative to deletion.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment With the creation of 2012 in UFC events a redirect or merge to it may be the best resolution until such time as the event can be proven to have a lasting effect on its own. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't we just delete this at AFD? I tagged for speedy as a recreation, but I guess it kept getting removed (with edit NO summary....) and is flooded with meatpuppets/sockpuppets on the talk page, so we are here again. Merging would be fine as a second choice (first choice is to speedy as recreation), as it doesn't establish stand alone notability.  The idea of Merging all these little articles was settled with a similar AFD by closing admin User:DGG, and I think his assessment was correct.   Dennis Brown (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This event has been officially announced by the UFC, it is notable and covered by other multiple sources. The event will be taking place, half the card has already been announced (including the main event). Do we really have to do this for every event? If it is deleted, someone else will recreate it within a few days. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
 * Comment "Someone else will recreate it within a few days" is not a valid argument as the page itself can be locked after deletion preventing the recreation. Also, your keep !vote you didn't address the concerns of lasting effect, WP:ROUTINE, and/or WP:SPORTSEVENT.  I am legitimately interested in how you think those issues can be resolved since you didn't participate in the MMA WikiProject discussion on this issue.  --TreyGeek (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't even know what half of that means, but it WILL be re-created eventually if deleted. Under it's official name, which hasn't been released yet. I don't see the point of deleting a single upcoming UFC event, when there are many more as well. Also I don't care what you are "legitimately interested in". This event IS notable for the exact same reason that every UFC event is notable. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
 * If you don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines how can you determine if the subject of a particular is article notable according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? WP:EFFECT says that the subject of an article must have lasting significance, that it should "act as a precedent or catalyst for something else".  WP:ROUTINE says that articles should not contain routine coverage of a subject which, in this case, includes routine fight announcements and results.  WP:SPORTSEVENT explicitly says that an article covering a notable sporting event should include "well sourced prose" which this article does not have.  This article fails to show these things, and without showing them, then it does not conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  If you think the article should be kept, are you going to improve the article to meet these guidelines?  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Every other UFC event has been enshrined on Wikipedia, and there is no reason to deviate from precedent here. Pull this, and you just about have to pull ~200 others with the same basic content. This is hardly a debate even worth having- keep it! Cesium_133 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS !vote and does not address how that this article meets WP:MMAEVENT. Mt  king  (edits)  06:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete w/ Comment All the UFC events appear to gain extensive amounts of coverage, thus meeting WP:GNG. In addition, upcoming events appear to also gain extensive amounts of coverage and thus should also be kept.  My comment is that I think it would be best to come up with some sort of policy about UFC/MMA events as well as other combat sports (e.g., boxing).  This would probably be best discussed under Notability (sports)).  It seems a line is drawn in boxing on if a major title is on the line or not.  For example - Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek was kept since it was a title fight while Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Daniel Ponce de León was not kept since it was not a title fight.  This might be a good line to draw for UFC events (or maybe not).  I think a policy should be established to stop the Edit Warring that occurs.RonSigPi (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:MMAEVENT. It's a section of a pre-existing essay on MMA fighter, promotion and event notability.  Discussions and suggestions on how to improve it are welcome on its talk page or at the MMA WikiProject.  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MMAEVENT individual events are not inherently considered notable - to be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect. Since lasting effect is not demonstrated for this article, I have changed from Keep to Delete.  I think a number of the UFC events that do not include title fights and/or are on free TV should be considered for deletion in view of the standard TreyGeek pointed out.RonSigPi (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification I wasn't attempting to sway your !vote one way or another. I was responding to your comment regarding having a clear guideline regarding MMA notability.  Now, in attempt to sway your !vote ;) what would your response be to the possibility of combining events into a single article as I mentioned in my !vote above?  I'm legitimately interested in any Wikipedian's opinions on this issue to figure out where to focus my efforts: individual event articles, "year in" event articles (similar to what's in my sandbox), or a middle ground as I suggested in my !vote above.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I have no idea why this event is up for deletion. It's a televised event for the largest organization in mixed martial arts. The fact that it's a UFC event should really be enough to prove it's lasting effect. An example of a similar event in a different sport would be ATP 500 events in tennis. These are not grand slams, or even 1000 masters series events, but they are vital to the sport and have ramifications to the overall standings of the league. --Pat (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: This event was already announced on the UFC site! Why is it up for deletion? Why is UFC 140 up for deletion? This is ridiculous... Whoever thinks this article should be deleted knows nothing about MMA and should keep away from MMA related articles. JadeSnake (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you address the concerns of those who have !voted delete in terms of the article failing to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? (Specifically, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:EFFECT, and WP:MMAEVENT)  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment as the nom, I will happily withdraw this and accept a redirect to the now created 2012 in UFC events. Mt  king  (edits)  04:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:47, 29 March 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.