Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman


 * 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   keep.  Wifione  Message 13:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article on this event has already been deleted following Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV 4 (2nd nomination), the event still fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event has had any enduring notability. The coverage, now as then is limited to the routine type of event announcements and results. Mt king  (edits)  11:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 7.Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per reasons given in the UFC 155, UFC Fight Night,UFC on FX Sotiropolis vs. Pearson. The articles have credible sources included from MMAJunkie (owned by USA today), Sherdog, TSN, Sportsnet, Globo, ESPN. These articles are written objectivley, have sources, and have viewership to support notability. Nominating more UFC pages for deletions and echoing the same response as before, even events with smaller notability are still acceptable under the Wiki notability events page, '''"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
 * Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." Even if these failed to meet the requirements, other actions should be met. Instead of deleting, Mtking (if he/she really wanted to follow wikipedia guidelines) could merge all the FX, Fuel, Fox cards into three annual omnibus; but it seems that Mtking is not willing to undertake this measure and would rather just delete all the MMA articles. Shame. Autokid15 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Annual omnibus article ? what a good idea, would be in keeping with WP's goal of summarising available reliable sources, perhaps we could call them 2012 in UFC events, UFC on Fuel TV events in 2012 and UFC on Fox events in 2012. Oh hang on, it looks like they have been deleted because MMA fans did not like them (see here, and here). As for the text you quoted the relevant bit is "especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" it is that later analysis that does not happen for MMA events. Your observation about sources also overlooks the point that the same is true for all professional sports, go look for sources on any of this weekends NFL games, you will come up with thousands of sources on each one, look for last weekends and you will have tens of thousands of sources on each of those, covering the results, significant plays, details of player performance and injuries yet none of them, like this and other UFC events are suitable candidates for an encyclopedia article. Before you retort with the international angle, you will find European and Aussie sources there as well as US ones. Also before you say that MMA is not NFL and should be treated differently, the question is why, where are the scholarly works that set out why an MMA event is so different to all other sports event, an encyclopedia should treat it differently ? Is it not professional sports persons competing with each other paid for by fans either paying to watch at the event or on TV ?  Mt  king  (edits)  03:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * Keep - per all keep arguments above. Farcical anti-MMA editor who is out on the hunt. Not routine coverage whatsoever.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The current state of the article is that it does not "have well-sourced prose, [and is] merely a list of stats".  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous UFC events just like this one were kept. There is no reason to think that this is any different. MTking comparison of UFC events to single football games is totally misplaced and shows that he has no knowledge about the sport. If we are to compare different sports, one football game would compare to one UFC fight. An UFC event usually has around 12 fights. While no one is thinking about creating an article for one UFC fight, an article for one UFC event is feasibly. Evenfiel (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, if an article is written to go with the tables. A lot of these MMA AfDs are bullshit, but in cases like this, I can see the point about a lack of sourced prose. Some pretty significant performances for Carmont and Weidman here, and readers might like to know how the fights actually went. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 14 November 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.