Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YAMMA Pit Fighting


 * 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 Bob Meyrowitz. Consensus that a separate article is not warranted here, but a reasonable redirect has been suggested, so am defaulting to that. Davewild (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

YAMMA Pit Fighting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable MMA organization/event. Prod and tags were deleted without explanation or improvement. The organization held a single event of no great impact. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete MMA organization that held 1 non-notable event. The only coverage is routine sports coverage or an announcement about the never held second event. Jakejr (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: This may be controversial, since there are loads of these sorts of articles, but the sources just discuss the sports event as an event and not the significance or importance of YAMMA as YAMMA, whatever it was (the article never expands the acronym). Hithladaeus (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bob Meyrowitz the creator of the organisation. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Bob Meyrowitz An organization that held one event and fails to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to the founder, who does not get notability from founding this organization, is reasonable--although that article could use some improvement by the addition of more and better sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The issue is not how long the organization lasted, after all, the Titanic didn't even complete its first voyage. The relevant standard is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. The sources here are at the low end, but a Google search shows additional coverage. The article is also well integrated into those of its participants and meets the GNG standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comparing one article to another is worthless and routine sports coverage does not show notability. Do you really think they'll be talking about YAMMA in 100 years like they do the Titanic? Mdtemp (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the sources that count and this article meets the standard. I don't care what you will think people will be talking about in a 100 years and until you show us your crystal ball and prove that it works, your argument is completely worthless. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article meets WP:GNG. It has 4 sources--2 are routine sports reporting, 1 says one of the founders of the UFC is starting a new MMA organization (hence the redirect I mentioned), and the final source's subtitle is "MMA fans recall the name "YAMMA" as one of the worst one-and-done promotions in the history of the sport.". That's not the significant coverage in multiple sources required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Wouldn't object to a redirect, but there's nothing to show this promotion or its one event are notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (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.