Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as a non notable individual event. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Every event is not notable. In every other sport, it is the entire year or season that has notability. This is an event that takes place on one night, that has many similar events happen throughout the year.


 * Delete No indication that this meets our inclusion criteria, covered only in routine sports results, no enduring significance claimed or demonstrated. Mt  king  (edits)  23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This event is a UFC event which is notable, UFC is the largest MMA organization in the world. Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The NFL is the most significant football league in the world, but it doesn't make all NFL games notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

--24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC) - This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody **WP:BEFORE. Even a simple Google search shows that this event is not merely covered in MMA related sites, but in such mainstream publications as the newspaper USA TODAY and in many articles, such as (this article clearly demonstrates notability: "The Ultimate Fighting Championship's latest live show set marks for most viewers on Fuel TV.") and  (multiple paragraph article that discusses the results rather than just listing them), among others. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody *UPDATE: It is no longer factually accurate to claim this event was not covered in reliable independent sources from non-MMA specific media as the article now cites at least two different articles from USA Today. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody 
 * Keep as article clear meets our inclusion criteria due to non-routine coverage and enduring significance of the event in the careers of the notable fighters who participated in it and in the history of the world's most influential MMA promotion. Plus, it aired on a major network as one of only a handful of such events to ever air on that network.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC) - This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody
 * Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements, sports [results]. The only sources cited are from 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.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since sources have been added to the article from mainstream media I am striking that portion of my delete rationale. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep by default as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL.  Nomination also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as nominator is indiscriminately mass nominating these articles out of distaste and/or igorance of the subject.  In any event, no good faith edito can deny that the article meets WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT and that it is consistent with what Wikipedia is in the opinion of the majority of its editors and readers rather than the minority opinion of electronic book burners who hate knowledge and civilization.  --63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how this event passes WP:EVENT and the coverage looks WP:ROUTINE to me. There doesn't seem to be anything significant about this event and the coverage is simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 9 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 ) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge If there's still an omnibus article than this could go into it. Otherwise there's nothing to show this is a notable event. Astudent0 (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is routine coverage of just another night of MMA fights. No notability is shown. Mdtemp (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:ROUTINE and Papaursa above--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  11:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Granted this is not a major UFC event and I am new to editing on Wiki, but is it possible to get some quantitative data before jumping to deletion? Can we get records for unique pageviews from an Admin to provide more details? I'm sure Wikipedia at least uses Google Analytics or some other impartial third party. I've got no problem deleting the page, but it seems like the arguments on these AfD are subjective. Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I'm new here and was drawn to the UFC debates after looking through the AfD page for UFC 146. Johntomico (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * however, im not sure what use the numbers are for the purpose of this discussion. There are may pages which are clearly encyclopedic, but that do not recieve significant traffic. Conversly, there may be many highly popular topics which are not fit for an encyclopedia (TV episode reviews, trivia, etc). This particular topic imo is not encyclopdic (for a general encyclopedia), but may be popular enough to MMA fans to show traffic. They should go to MMAopedia or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 15 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.