Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV 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   delete. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV 4
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still two months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. as is only currently sourced to MMA fan sites and UFC.com. Mt king  (edits)  03:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and speedy close. Pure speculation about an event that might be held this summer. There's more sourcing out there for an article about Jennifer Aniston's next husband. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2012 in UFC events. Delete The article cites only a single non-MMA source (and it is routine coverage of a MMA event) thus is a borderline fail of WP:GNG.  The article lacks well-sourced prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT to discuss why the event is notable.  It contains only routine fight card listings and possible speculation.  Actually, based on that, I'm already changing my !vote.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes.  See here, for example.  I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)   Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user --TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no WP:NOT violation with every single mixed martial arts event and it is disruptive to continue AfD nominating each and every one of them, and is against WP:POINT guidelines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeekfox (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that people keep creating articles on numerous MMA events around the globe, regardless of notability, could also be considered pointy. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Most of the articles in question (UFC/Strikeforce events) were created well before all the debate and discussion of whether or not they should exist.  There was no point to be made because nobody opposed them.  If there are a bunch of amateur bouts just now getting articles made as a result of the discussion, I could see the violation, but my reasoning for keeping this article is that the chain of UFC event articles has long pre-dated any sort of controversy, while throwing AfD nominations on almost every 2012 UFC article is a WP:POINT issue that needs to stop.  Zeekfox (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing to show this future event will have the lasting significance required to show notability or that there will be anything but routine sports coverage. If there is an appropriate omnibus article then it could be merged there, but at this time it certainly doesn't appear notable enough for its own article. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just an ordinary fight card that fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Mdtemp (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to UFC on Fuel TV. I consider UFC on Fuel and *FX as beeing "B-shows" where the notabillity is harder to prove, perhaps even so hard to prove that it fails the notabillity requirements and needs to be deleted. However, deleting all current and future UFC events is the wrong way to go. There is an open RFC, and open RFC/U and MedCab may be a possibillity for the more deeply involved parties. If the Omnibus can "save" Numbered UFC Events from deletion, just by placing all pages into one page, then an Omnibus could be created for UFC on Fuel as well, with the same result. Just to repeat myself, bluntly deleting information is bad. Mazter00 (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). A compromise of merge to 2012 in UFC events is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

MERGE All Similar AfDs. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all have very similar contents, same AfD arguments and same users making them. The fact that I have to copy/paste this several times is evidence enough. The procedure for multiple deletions should be used to nominate, say, all UFC events instead of one by one. Doing them individually seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least by doing noms all at once the space can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that it's left in. TL;DR: 200 nom >> 1 nom, just do the 1 for all applicable pages so everyone can move on. The objection to this has already been answered at nom for ufc 149. Agent00f (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails news, fails routine, fails coverage, fails notability, fails crystal ball, fails everything. Portillo (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how it meets any notability criteria. None of the fights appear important (e.g., no championships are on the line), there's nothing to show this event will have any long term significance, and there's no indication that there has been or will be anything but routine sports coverage. Jakejr (talk) 21:54, 26 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.