Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier (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   delete. Arguments to keep are not based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. WP:N applies. I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 16:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt  king  (edits)  00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. The only sources cited are from the UFC and MMA media which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject".  Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader or to explain why the event is notable.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, very obviously. The criticisms of this page are quite honestly terrible and biased.  The event does NOT fail WP:FUTURE, not even close.  It's 100% happening.  It's an event featuring dozens of notable fighters in the most notable MMA organization of all time, and the previous trip to Fairfax, VA for a UFC Fight Night card was one of the most successful Fight Nights ever in terms of attendance and gate - http://mmajunkie.com/news/17524/ufc-fight-night-20-a-sellout-with-near-record-730000-live-gate.mma  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.99.41 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The trolling of MMA articles should not be allowed and the people requested they be deleted should be banned. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. 131.151.190.175 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep There are hundreds of articles less notable than this one, deleting them all generally goes against the spirit of Wikipedia IMO (Justinsane15 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC))


 * Delete/Merge This is a second or third tier event for UFC. Articles fails multiple notability policies and especially fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge contents into omnibus article. Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge This is another event with no indication it meets WP:EVENT or is anything but WP:ROUTINE. I have no problem with it being merged into an omnibus article. Astudent0 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep This event has some notability in the fact that the fight between the Korean Zombie and Dustin Poirier is a very important fight for the Featherweight division. Following the event we could see one of them named contender to Aldo's belt following his fight with Koch, which would definitely get coverage for the event. With events like these though, I would agree that it would be better served in the omnibus until the Event actually happens, so long as the omnibus gets updated a little more frequently than the single pages do. At the moment, it seems to get updated rather infrequently and inconsistently. THEDeadlySins (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the vague claims of 'very important fight" does not seem to indicate anything real. The reason it is given as very important is that it is possible for one of the people to possibly become able to challenge the champion, and that's about as weak a basis for notability as I can imagine in any sport at all.  And though I agree that there are probably indeed a hundred or so even weaker articles on this subject, the conclusion I draw is that we should delete those also.    DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vague assertions of notability not supported by sources. Neutralitytalk 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regarding "non-routine" coverage, as the nature of this event changes--fighter replacemets--the coverage is based on specific events and circumstances;  this is not simply press releases that just provide hype or information-free publicity.

Fighter replacements are significant, as the entire content of the event is based on these specific fighters. It is not minor as would be the injury of a single player on a baseball, football or hockey team, etc.--it is more like an entirely different team is taking the field. Likewise, the information about who is replacing who reveals a lot about the rankings and momentum of fighters which is siginficant beyond the context of this specific event.

The coverage is global in scope, as the fighters are international and the sport has global reach.

The claim of failing WP:SPORTSEVENT are also misguided since these are top-level pros. The analogy of "regular season" for MMA does not really hold; in "regular season" events, the individual games don't really matter except in total at the end of the season, whereas in MMA, every match is a sink-or-swim proposition where the fighter might arguable get cut from the promotion if his or her performance is not up to par, and likewise, a fighter might prove his or her suitability to be a title challenger as a result of his or her performance.

The claim of failing WP:MMAEVENT is particular ridiculous, as UFC is explicity listed as a Top Tier organization.

The claim of faliing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is marginal, although only if you ignore the stated policy, "information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", as that is the bulk of the information in the article and is not "emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", so it is in fact following policy.

The most relevant suggestion would be to include this information 2012 in UFC events article. However, the fighter replacement information is not contained in that article, so it does not serve the same purpose. More importantly, from a usability perspective, that is a terrible suggestion, as the amount of conent on the page is too much--the list of citations are already nearly 100, and we are only a third of the way through the year. How many other articles have that many citations? While the basis of this discussion is nominally WP policy, note that all policies are ultimately defined so that WP is a useful resource. When following policy creates a bad experience, slavish adherence to policy is not a good idea, and in any case, it is a matter of interpretation whether any of these policies are being violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.73 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 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.