Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9

I am dissapointed that, so far, none of the editors who had expressed their opinion prior to my participation at this debate has tried to engage in constructive discussion regarding the points that I've made, which I believe address their prior objections satisfactorily. Yet, at least some of them are evidently monitoring this AfD closely, and are instead investing their time in comparatively marginal issues such as the infantile suckpuppetry that would surely be noted by the closing admin without much hassle. Quite frankly, and I hope you forgive for saying this, my current impression is that they do not wish to discuss, for reasons that escape me. As I said, I find this disappointing: I understand that usually the AfDs related to this topic are almost a joke; alas, i'm not joking, and the points I've raised are serious. I'm open to in depth analysis of my arguments, either at this talk page or (when my account becomes autoconfirmed tomorrow), the main AfD page itself. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, none of the delete voters are even trying to come to deal properly, instead they try to enforce their message in such a way that I question the reasons why they choose to take part on any MMA related subject. They clearly don't look try to understand the other side of the argument and their argument against it isn't even strong enough to use as a reason why to remove these pages. This has really sickened me to be honest, and that is why I am stressing a whole new system to determine an event's notability based on the level the promotion is on. BigzMMA (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG's idea when closing [] has been embraced by many "deleters", which would allow keeping the material in the articles, and give time to find and properly source article before they were spun out as stand alone. Technically, NONE of the information would be deleted, only organized differently than you want.  Organized in a way that is compatible with the guidelines here.  I think you guys are missing the point.  What I see is not a bunch of people who want all MMA articles deleted, they simply don't want thousands of small articles that are poorly sourced, when there is a better solution.  I agree. Combining them down by year into a main article still allows for spinning off the truly notable events, puts more information in one place to make it more usable, and makes maintenance and sourcing much easier.  It is better to have 10 events in 1 article, with 3 spun off articles, all high quality, rather than 10 weak articles.  I couldn't care less about MMA itself, one way or another, but I do hate us having tons of tiny improperly sourced articles on many sports, musics and other topics.  Your time would be better spent participating in the creating of larger, comprehensive articles that can include the material and be notable, as a whole.  Engaging "deleters" and admins and asking how to include the material in a way that is consistent with the guidelines will likely bear fruit.  Commenting on how stupid or evil the "deleters" are isn't going to get you your way, and only makes people less likely to work with you for a compromise.  The only question is, do you want to be "right", or do you want to find a way to incorporate material on MMA into articles, even if the method isn't your first choice?  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea seems sensible and perfectly in accordance with the aspirations of both those who propose such information be kept, and "deleted" in terms of reorganization of many disperse and stand alone items. The advantages of such system do not escape me, and I think it would be a far better solution than anything that has been proposed so far. Although I'm a martial arts practitioner, I'm not a fan of MMA, and I didn't even know who Nate Marquardt was until I saw this AfD; it was the general attitude (and yes, my own irrepressible penchant for getting in trouble) that caught my attention in the first place. Therefore, I may not be the ideal editor for performing such a task, but I'm more than willing to help anyone with the required expertise in the best way that I can, in terms of article building, organizing, copyediting, WP:MOS'ing and sourcing, even tho my original intention was not getting involved in this project (again).
 * I wish to make clear that I don't think anyone to be, as you say, "stupid" nor "evil", nor seek to be "right". What I find frustrating is the lack of will to acknowledge the sources I've provided in compliance with WP:GNG, or at least to discuss them. Even at this message, Dennis, and as much as I commend your intention and endorse your proposal, you still make no mention to them. However, in my own experience, compromise, good will and lots of work are the only solution to achieve what everybody wants: that all the information that deserves to be included is available to the general public. I also endorse the concept that, whenever possible, unified information on a single topic is desirable, rather than atomized treatment of related aspects of it (even tho I disagree with the blanket statement of "improperly and poorly sourced"; as it stems from the quality and quantity of available reliable sources, it is my firm belief that at least BAMMA 1, 6 and 9 have received significant independent coverage). That being said, I'd be happy to support a motion to Merge into the main BAMMA article as a perfectly acceptable solution that can put an end to discussion and close at least one venue of needless, bitter and unnecessary infighting between editors for good. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at some of the sources, just not done yet, seriously. This week with MMA articles has worn me out with drama, not an area I normally get involved in.  I will say this, the primary problem is that people start these articles way too soon, when there are few if any sources.  It is like a mad dash to be the article "creator" as soon as a rumor is started, people search, they find nothing, maybe someone finds something a few days later, but all the arguing and fighting makes it so no one wants to revisit their !vote.  The 'keep' crowd ends up shooting themselves in the foot.  IMHO, what would be best is to start (in userspace until it is ready) a List of BAMMA events article.  Seriously, that would be more usable, with tables for the matches, plus expanded info as needed.  This wouldn't stop any individual article from being created if a particular event gets more coverage outside the "MMA Media", which some DO.  The main BAMMA article would just have a simple listing like it does now, with the normal MAIN tags.  This would make life better for all, as the new events can be listed in the List article without any fear of AFD, disputes could be dealt with on the talk page instead of here, and we don't have a bunch of tiny, undersourced articles.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed to a keep, since some of the sources you provided do pass wp:rs, and are enough to demonstrate notability. I still think the answer in the future is to create a list of article, and put new events in that article until there are enough sources to clearly demonstrate notability.  Hopefully, that will keep us from having to endure this unnecessary and endless "whack-a-mole" game with SPAs and socks next time.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Dennis, I owe you an apologize for my previous impatience and the resulting tension in our dialogue. Before you reversed your opinion (which truly shows you're open minded and willing to hear all the voices involved in the debate), I was planning to drop you a message agreeing with you unreservedly on your appreciation that most, if not all of these articles tend to be WP:TOOSOONish, which means they're basically born with an inherent flaw. Which is extraordinarily bad, as you rightfully say: later press coverage can turn them into truly undisputable material (as shown above), without the need to rush and create when there's still little (or nothing) to say about them.
 * I have openly extended your proposal at the debate's main page; there's no need for you to change your opinion to a keep on this particular article (even tho I sincerely commend you for your courage and humbleness in doing so), as we will soon enough witness a blanket proposal of deletion for all the remaining articles of this organization's events. We all need a more comprehensive solution, and yours seems exactly the appropriate one. Your proposal, based upon the one made by DGG, is exactly the kind of constructive solution needed in cases like this, and I endorse it wholeheartedly. If there only were a few dozen more editors with your spirit of working towards a positive solution, instead of trying to force their own personal view, tons of bitterness and grief could be avoided every day... and I wouldn't have left this place in disgust years ago. Trust me, it's heartwarming to see that not all is lost. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)