Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 12

Proposal: Pancrase 10 wins
I propose that any fighter that has 10 fights in Pancrase between 1990-2000 be considered notable.

Bas Ruten, Jason Delucia, Masakatsu Funaki, Minoru Suzuki, Ryushi Yanagisawa all strictly fall under this category. Also, I dont believe they would qualify under our current notability rules. However, with the changes I have added they would. Furthermore, the reality says that the people in the 90s Pancrase are Notable. We should just make it official

RINGS legitimacy
Editor (at talk page of Volk Han entry) has been pretty persistent recently that Fighting Network RINGS should not be considered a Top-Tier (defunct) MMA promotion. RINGS started as a U-Kei/Shoot-style Pro Wrestling company in 1991 by Akira Maeda as a continuation of his UWF. Around 1995, the company claimed a transition to Mixed Martial Arts, though there is likelihood that it didn't. The Japanese entry merely claims that in 1999/2000, RINGS adopted new rules (RINGS KOK ruleset) to "strengthened the color of mixed martial arts". I would like some clarification of facts here. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By clarification of facts I mean, I want other people's take on this. TrickShotFinn (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to find my sources but I put the sources to the words of Dave Meltzer in the Volk Han talk page. There were many rings fights which were worked and that were shoots. But all the Volk Han fights were worked that is the reason I specifically feel that Volk Han should not have fights listed under is name. There we good fighters for example Dan Severn, that I know had some works. But then I would have sit their and try to find proof to dispute his entire record, when it really doesnt matter because the important fights werent works. Now, this is not the case for Volk Han, I have never seen or have reason to believe Volk Han was part of a shoot. I've never seen someones wrestlnig record treated as an mma record. Furthermore in regards to rings. I only contend that people that fought in rings by 1990 and roughly 2000 should definetly not be considered top tier at all.[User:Jacee215|Jacee215]] (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * When you say "I only contend that people that fought in rings by 1990 and roughly 2000 should definetly not be considered top tier at all", what do you mean?TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

They are not WP:MMANOT what I want to say is, they are not notable for their MMA. They are notable because Rings was a fairly popular shoot style organization, so yes they may qualify for WP:Notability. But it is not because of their MMA abilities or because "Rings was a notable MMA organization". It was a notable Pro wrestling organization, and even though yes it did have some MMA fights with notable fighters like many other organizations(Bellator). I dont think it would be considered "Top Tier. as many of those fighters really never grew in popularity. The people of rings who generally are considered Notable are the pro wrestlers like Volk Han.Jacee215 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rings Problem
Main Problem: The organization known as Fighting Network Rings throughout much of it's career but especially the 90's blended both worked and shoot style events. Many events have both the presence of worked and shoot matches. This lack of clear and official distinction makes it almost impossible to say what is a work and what is a shoot definitively.

Other problems:
 * 1) Because it is difficult to say which is worked and which are shoots, one side is always going to say  you cant tell, prove it. While the other side is going to say worked organizations and worked matches are clearly common knowledge. How do we address the fact that many times it is impossible to sufficiently prove one way or the other?

Backstory: I personally called into question the legitimacy of Rings FC and the entire career of Volk Han who I think that we all know are quite linked. Being that he is given a Fighter's Infobox and Rings FC is given the highest respects in term of MMANOT the question is of the utmost importance.

This is purely to summarize the problem in a more neutral stand point, especially for outsiders. I greatly appreciate the input of others in this matterJacee215 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a somewhat similar situation with PRIDE FC, especially with the career of Nobuhiko Takada who is infamous for his fixed fights, most notably against Mark Coleman, however these fights are still counted in both of their records.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 13:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, if it's promoted as under label of being an MMA fight, does that mean the match is a "fixed MMA fight" or "worked pro wrestling bout"? Also, Volk Han is still in the records of guys like Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira, Branden Lee Hinkle - who fought him in RINGS circa KOK rules in 2000 & 2001. TrickShotFinn (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jacee215 Regarding Nobuhiko Takada, note that his MMA section does have citations that offer second-hand perspective about happenings and circumstances during Takada's MMA career.TrickShotFinn (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @TrickShotFinn I have to disagree with you, and all others that it is "a similar situation as Takada" for 2 reasons. 1. The Takada works were 1 offs in an event that was very heavily shoot matches and a majority of opponents with real mma records. It was purely deceptive. 2 Volk Han never intended to make you doubt that he was a Professional Wrestler, like Takada or the worked matches of Nog and Dan Severn.(Compare the difference among Ken Shamrock, who made very clear distinctions between worked matches and real ones) Simultaneously, you dont see me question the entire veracity of Dan Severn or Nogs record because of 1 or 2 worked matches, that is NOT the issue here. The issue here is this simply: Volk Han never fought a single MMA fight in his career, we do not give John Cena or Triple HHH fight infoboxes. Nor do we include the worked matches of Ken Shamrock or CM Punk into their list of MMA fights. So why is that the case for Volk Han? I don't see how anything other than a sufficient answer to that question should keep Volk Hans list up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel this is turning into an infinite regress. To escape this, I think I now need to ask "What exactly makes you think he didn't fight a single MMA match in his career?" -- And be fully honest. TrickShotFinn (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember that this was the heart of the problem: # Because it is difficult to say which is worked and which are shoots, one side is always going to say you cant tell, prove it. While the other side is going to say worked organizations and worked matches are clearly common knowledge. How do we address the fact that many times it is impossible to sufficiently prove one way or the other? What im trying to say by that is this, the same reason I say all the matches John Cena fought were works, is the same reason I say all the matches Volk Han fought were works. It is obvious, and apparent. Furthermore, no one has give an answer to this question: 'Volk Han never fought a single MMA fight in his career, we do not give John Cena or Triple HHH fight infoboxes. Nor do we include the worked matches of Ken Shamrock or CM Punk into their list of MMA fights. So why is that the case for Volk Han?' and again, I repeat, I can not prove that Volk Han was a "worked match" just like I can not prove that the wwe is "fake" purely based on content. I mean how do I know that a couple of john cenas worked matches aren't real? Should we list every John Cena match? John Cena was in the ring over 1000 times, even if 5 of them were shoots(which we dont know right?) His(Cena's) career  should be considered  with the likes of Randy Couture, Dan Severn, and Brock Lesnar. Jacee215 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jacee215 - Ok, seems like consensus is stalling, but let's get this out of the way. First of all, your appeal to common knowledge is fraudulent and can count as gaming the system on basis of "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification, or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy." According to Common knowledge - section "when to seek professional help" it says; "Certain kinds of claims should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations:"
 * Controversial claims, facts about which Wikipedians themselves cannot form a rough consensus. Since the Wikipedia community has no general consensus on this topic (nor citations to back anything), your appeal to common knowledge does not apply.
 * Untested facts or arguments; "Original research that presents reports based on your own experience, or your own ideas, theories, or arguments, even when these are based on established facts, are not allowed, according to Wikipedia policy."
 * Your argument can count as indirect knowledge; i.e hearsay or anything the reporting Wikipedians don't have direct personal experience with.

Also the WWE comparison is quite bizarre. Mainly based on fact that WWE has been (show/gimmick) pro wrestling company from mid-20th century to present, while Rings has been (shoot-style) pro wrestling company between 1991-1994 and making a (sorta) transition to MMA in 1995 and full transition to MMA in 1999 by adopting the KOK rules. On this matter there is no gray area about "works" or "MMA fights" with WWE, but there is with RINGS.

The 1995-1999 RINGS situation is applicable to Pancrase around 1993-1995 actually, and I have the citations to back this up. Like Shamrock, since the controversial 1994 Matt Hume has been revealed to be a worked shoot. So you have a worked fight in both's records. Additionally, we have quote from Guy Mezger saying "4 out 5 fights/most of them [were worked/fixed] before I was fighting for them (circa 1994/1995)." See? You can prove this stuff and not hide behind "you cant tell, prove it". Then, under your logic, if Han's 1995-1999 stuff needs to be removed, Shamrock's Pancrase stuff should be removed too, since there is no verification that any of it is actually legit. Shamrock's situation is low key worse here, since we *do* have cited, third party opinion that there were fake fights in Pancrase (when it was claiming to be a MMA company). But I won't delete Shamrock's MMA records - because Pancrase - like RINGS from 1995 till closure - identified itself as a Mixed Martial Arts promotion - not Pro Wrestling/"Sports Entertainment" like WWE.

I'm not responsible for your decision to remove Volk Han's MMA records. But wikipedians are allowed to undo your deletion. And if you persist, eventually you might push this situation to a point where admins needs to get involved and you may end in hot water. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * At the risk of oversimplification, this seems pretty simple. Go by what the sources say. Jacee your argument seems based on WP:OR and opinion. Please don't delete any more records. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the wall of text, y'all. Like the wise man says; “It takes one minute to tell a lie, and an hour to refute it.” -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Notice the lie which is taking an hour to refute?Jacee215 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Ill leave these here for the world too see and let every man judge for himself


 * 1) totally real fight
 * 2) totally real fight
 * 3) Quote in the description of this fight: "According to Sherdog and Wikipedia, the first professional mixed martial arts fight for both Akira Maeda and Volk Han was against each other, at "Rings: Budokan Hall 1995". WRONG WRONG WRONG. In every way that can be wrong, it's wrong."
 * 1) Quote in the description of this fight: "According to Sherdog and Wikipedia, the first professional mixed martial arts fight for both Akira Maeda and Volk Han was against each other, at "Rings: Budokan Hall 1995". WRONG WRONG WRONG. In every way that can be wrong, it's wrong."


 * 1) a fight from 1999

I would recommend anyone go back and randomly select whichever handful of Volk Han fights, and tell me if it's not "common knowledge" that he was pro wrestler. Jacee215 (talk)

My pence (for sake of consensus); the 1999 Cvetko Cvetkov (KOK Rules) seems real enough/like a actual MMA fight. Though, Cvetkov doesn't look like too capable of a fighter - if anything, this creates a impression that Han was pitted against a easy fights during 1999-2001. Which would make sense, considering how close Han was to top brass and if he wanted to protect his image. Regardless, I doubt that fight is a "pro-wrestling style work" (fixed maybe, but not a show) based on lack of dramatics (i.e last minute escapes) and different pacing than the Dick Fry and Tamura ones. Nothing really new here. Also, one of the yt links seem to be broken. As for the quote, what I meant was that a little misleading claim can take hours to clear up. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also lets throw the Nog match in for kicks. I don't see anything deviating from a typical MMA fight. Though personally, I get slight feeling that Nog may have been ordered to go easy on Han by the brass. But that's a job for verifiable sources. That said, there are contemporary, active MMA organizations are guilty of that sort of shady booking. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Moving PFL to Top Tier
Hi Editors, I work with Professional Fighters League and many of you have helped me out making edits and new pages in the past. Now I wanted to see if we could promote PFL to a Top Tier promotion. We currently have the following fighters in Top 10 of their weight classes or division according to Fight Matrix or Sherdog: In the past, we’ve also had the following fighters in the Top 10 of their classes:
 * Raush Manfio is currently #10 in the Lightweight division according to Fight Matrix
 * Kayla Harrison is currently #2 in the Women’s Featherweight+ division according to Fight Matrix
 * Genah Fabian is currently #6 in the Women’s Featherweight+ division according to Fight Matrix
 * Julia Budd is currently #7 in the Women’s Featherweight+ division according to Fight Matrix
 * Lance Palmer is currently #41 in the Featherweight Division according to Fight Matrix, but was ranked in the top 10 between 01/01/2020 and 01/01/2021, while he was with PFL.

After UFC and Bellator, I think we consistently have the most fighters in the Top 10. Tagging, , , , and , but I of course welcome all votes. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help provide to assist you in making your decision. Thank you again for all your hard work. I really appreciate it and everything you’ve taught me about Wikipedia. Camillefrancis (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the tag. However I'm not sure there's a strong enough case to put PFL in the top tier. Raush Manfio seems to be the only male fighter in the top 10 of his division, while there are a couple fighters signed who are sitting outside the top 15. There are 4 female fighters in the top 10 of the Women's Featherweight division signed to the PFL, but none in any other weight class.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that Olivier Aubin-Mercier just made the top ten as well, but I'm not sure if you need three total or three current men in the top ten of their respective divisions. I'll wait on the other people tagged here who seem to know it better. -- FeldBum (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Larissa Pacheco also became top 10 after PFL4, according to Fight Matrix. Let me know what else I can provide. -- Camillefrancis

Comment: Top tier promoter needs to have at least 6 fighters in either Sherdog for consistently over a year to be qualified. A year from now, if you can provide month by month info of the 6 top tier info with the support of the sources, then you are welcome to propose PFL to be top tier promotion. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia  talk
 * I agree with Cassiopeia and also want to point out that men and women fighters are in separate categories. Papaursa (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

change MMABIO?
Per WP:NSPORTS2022, NSPORT participation based criteria was removed. MMABIO's first two criteria are of course participation based. Do we remove them too? Seems like it'd only just confuse editors about the proper guidelines.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 07:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Can someone give me a quick run down about the whole drama with the participation stuff? It seems like they just got rid of all the sports notability criteria and it's just all based on general notability now? I'll continue using the three bout rule since it helps to spread out the new articles so I can work on them and give enough references. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus that participation criteria would be removed, there was another proposal to increase the threshold and make the criteria a little stricter which would've been the right move in my opinion, but it failed to achieve a consensus. If we were to follow this new guideline blindly, in most cases we would see hardly any new articles able to be created, we would mostly only be able create pages for the top 10 in the world, which is completely ridiculous.  ♡RAFAEL♡(<b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color#FF00FF">talk</b>) 07:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I say we keep three bouts as the threshold to create new fighter articles. It's been working fine, it would make no sense to make it even tighter. For instance, if Rizin weren't tier one, Procházka would only have an article after the bout where he became champion (unless there are other criteria I'm not aware of - which is a strong possibility!). Psycho-Krillin (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Udar55 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree, we need to have some sort of way to allow newer fighters to have articles, and I haven't seen many issues with using 3 fights in a top tier promotion criteria. <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:110%;color:#E285FF"> ♡RAFAEL♡</b>(<b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color#FF00FF">talk</b>) 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, the participation criteria was widely removed at WP:NSPORT for several reasons. First, it was too broad in some sports, where one appearance in a large number of leagues implied notability.  Second, there were so many stub articles created with no attempt to provide sourcing.  I saw people create hundreds of articles consisting solely of "NAME was a NATIONALITY athlete that competed at the DATE Olympics in SPORT."  It also pays to remember that SNG were created to provide a easy short cut to showing that someone probably met WP:GNG.  It was not designed to allow lots of additional articles to pass, but rather to make it easier for editors to tell what was likely to be notable.  Boxing, which has been around much longer as a sport than MMA, has always used the world top 10 as a criteria for professionals--so it's not like MMA was singled out.  The three top tier fight criteria was created as a reasonable way to establish an objective criteria to be used for MMA fighters. (I will admit I had wanted to use a two win criteria, but was outvoted).  It's important to realize that we need to operate within the existing WP criteria, otherwise editors will be wasting their time creating articles that won't survive AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pls wait guys, I think the RfC of removing all SSG was closed as "Obsolete discussion" and have moved to sport by sport discussion. The closing editor has retired and I am checking with an admin to confirm. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  08:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Guys - see the links on NSPORT and the conversation I had with the admin involved in of the above - [ clarification of MMA SSN] - Do note: WP:NMMA (part of SSG (sport specific guidelines) is under WP:NSPORT (approval needed if any changes to NMMA) and NSPORT is under WP:GNG. No NSPORT or SSG superseded GNG. SSN is presume to be notable (fast track) to GNG. Even a subject meets SSN or SNG (specific notability guidelines). It still needs to be pass GNG. As the links and conversation above - the current WP:NMMA has changed to "Have been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (fightmatrix.com)." and nothing else - this means subject either pass the above SSG or GNG would valid a pass in Wikipedia moving forward.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: New MMA Notability
Hey Proposing that new notability criteria now be

Criteria supporting notability
 * Have won 2 professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
 * Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or
 * Been ranked in the world top 15 in their division by either Sherdog (Sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (FightMatrix.com).

So the changes are that instead of just participation in 3 bouts, there is now an accomplishment criteria where the fighter has to win two bouts. Most fighters that win usually have a third anyway, but it will avoid fighters who go 1-3, 0-3, etc. I have noticed that most of the pages that have been deleted for fighters that satisfied the old criteria were fighters that didn't win any of the 3 bouts. Also expanded the top 10 to top 15 since both Sherdog and Tapology have rankings that go up to 15. HeinzMaster (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I like it. Powderkegg (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nswix (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Sounds good to me. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I like this proposal. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE -  Oppose of changing 3 fights to 2 fights and many new fighters who earned a contract on UFC does not even belong in the top teir and got cut after 3 fights (which is usually their contract) as compare some fighters who are fighting under other non top tier MMA organization. We have plenty of MMA fighter pages as compare to boxing and other sport especially since MMA has only 25 years history as oppose to other sport have over 100 years of history. Secondly all all combat sport use top ten and not top 15 which is the general norm for NSPORT - and we would get a pass vote in SNPORT even we agree here.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  08:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - I like this idea, but would it involve deleting old pages of fighters with 2 fights who are, say 1-2?. I feel like if we kept those pages and implemented this new criteria it would be more useful.c(FFCETT77 (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC))
 * It's not 3 fights to 2 fights, it's 3 fights to 2 wins, so somewhat stricter. And I can give or take the top 10 or top 15. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's obvious that having a 2-0 record is more relevant than a 0-3 within the organization. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Diana056 (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Udar55 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support - I agree that the proposed notability guidelines are superior to the present ones, although I acknowledge Cassiopeia's critique. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I support this over the senseless NSPORT notability criteria. In my humble opinion, it could also be 1 win AND minimum of 3 fights in a top-tier organization but I'm fine with the 2 WIN criteria also. However, I OPPOSE retroactively deleting pages. Also as a comment, the UFC rookie contracts are almost always for four fights, not three - though the organization tends to renegotiate the contracts between third and fourth fight as the UFC antitrust lawsuit exerpts show. Ticelon (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ya I don't think the rules should apply retroactively, maybe have it just start this year. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Guys - see the links on NSPORT and the conversation I had with the admin involved in of the above - [ clarification of MMA SSN] - Do note: WP:NMMA (part of SSG (sport specific guidelines) is under WP:NSPORT (approval needed if any changes to NMMA) and NSPORT is under WP:GNG. No NSPORT or SSG superseded GNG. SSN is presume to be notable (fast track) to GNG and Village pump is a venue for discussion of Wikipedia policy which is the highest level of all and we here (WikiProject MMA) are in the lowest level. Even a subject meets SSN or SNG (specific notability guidelines). It still needs to be pass GNG. As the links and conversation above - the current WP:NMMA has changed to "Have been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (fightmatrix.com)." and nothing else - this means subject either pass the above SSG or GNG would valid a pass in Wikipedia moving forward and in regardless how many fights a fighters have fought for UFC or Ballator would not pass NMMA unless they pass GNG. To say that even with all the support above, the recent pass in NSPORT an village pump guidelines, will see the above proposal to be struck down in NPORT, let alone in Village pump discussion (note: NSPORT discussion is not merely for mma editors).  I would suggest to propose new MMA guidelines to include not only top tier but the second tier promotions', such ONE, KSW, Absolute Championship Berkut, Cage Warriors, Jungle Fight, M-1 Global, King of the Cage (KOTC) and PFL (of course including UFC, Bellator and Invicta - current top tier promotions), fighters who have won/fought for a title fights to be included as they will be NOT part of  "mere participation" in a game or match but "particular levels of achievement, awards".<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  01:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What would your suggestion be for having second tier promotions included and which ones? FOr example there is a huge difference between Jungle Fight/KOTC and ONE/PFL HeinzMaster (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Guest here but an MMA fanatic who is very involved online & have watched these recent discussions about notability closely. Without going too far into my views on the notability criteria in general as they're not entirely relevant (I'll say including Bellator as a top tier prom is clearly going in the right direction) I will say I strongly support the notion of "tier 2" champions being included. MMA promotions are not inherently tiered the same way many other sports are. Wiki's list of sporting properties by revenue backs as much up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue).
 * Champions in tier 2 promotions should absolutely get wikipedia articles as they tend to be adjacent with top 10 ranked contenders in terms of ability whether they are formally regarded as such or not.
 * The question of tier 2 promotions is a good one and one I believe I can shed some light on. Of what was listed in the post above promotions like Cage Warriors, Jungle Fight, KOTC should not be tier 2 promotions. They are what I personally refer to as "big regionals" and are explicitly feeder leagues for tier 1/high 2 shows where the money is much better. Their pay would seldom if ever top 5 figures and 5 figures would be for a champion (if that). LFA is another promotion I would put in this tier.
 * I'd personally advocate for PFL and ONE to receive tier 1 status but I'm not here to argue that, definitely tier 2 though. ACA (formerly ACB), KSW, Rizin & BRAVE are what I would call tier 2 promotions. They have strong followings in their respective regions, champions are usually paid well (6 figures +) and in turn they are able to attract certain top talent. M1 is unofficially dead FYI, hasn't had a show since pre covid. 205.150.223.22 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, if there is a tier 2 champ status, I think there should be some differention between promotions like you mentioned and stuff like KOTC, Cage Warriors, or Jungle Fights. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I like the sound of this. This way, champions and challengers outside of the UFC can be included. Ptkday (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So just to summarize, the MMA notability don't really matter since they have to pass GNG anyway. So would articles be able to be deleted due to not meeting the NMMA criteria of being in the top 10 rankings? HeinzMaster (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently yes, considering we have a new editor actively trying to delete pages just to disrupt the WikiProject MMA. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit confusing having this discussion going on here and at WT:MMA. However, as I mentioned there, meeting WP:GNG is the gold standard and is guaranteed to protect an article.  The SNGs were set up to give people a quick test on notability.  The idea being that the SNG should be set so that 90+% or so, depending on the editor you ask, of the people who meet the SNG can be expected to have the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG.  Apparently, the bulk of editors (overall, not just MMA) felt that being a world top 10 ranked fighter would meet that criteria.  Note that it's world top 10, not depending on any organization's own rankings (not really true for boxing, but that sport is an organizational mess--and Ring's rankings predate all of them).  I did think it was interesting that they also removed the part of the SNG which allowed inclusion of fighters who had fought for the overall title of a top tier organization.  I missed that discussion since I was traveling abroad at the time.  I haven't seen any attempts to remove a top 10 fighter, and I suspect that could be more readily defended--both on principle and with a more thorough search for sources. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As one of the trainers for new page reviewer at WP:NPPS, I would say "all" articles need to pass GNG in order to stay in EN Wikipedia for good. SSN and SNG are fast track to be accepted in the Wikipedia mainspace on the notion that the subject would "MOST PROPARY" would pass GNG but SSN and SGN "do NOT" superseded GNG, this means if the articles pass SSN or SSN and they fail GNG (thought unlikely) they would be deleted at AfD (with a few exception sometimes); However, to say that, from my experience if a subject passes NMMA guidelines, it is almost always voted a keep in AfD. At the moment, NMMA notability is including world top ten in Sherdog or Fight Matrix rankings system - in another words, it most properly would survive AfD in most cases unless somehow the subject manage to ranking in top ten yet no articles are written bout him in any languages in independent, reliable sources (IRS) which is very unlikely. The recent removal of "mere participants of the sport" and "at least 3 fights in top teir organization" is not only impact us (NMMA) but also many other sports such as in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB let alone national prayers who represent their countries in any international/ Olympic / Commonwealth games.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  07:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Current criteria is too strict compared with any other sport. --FeldBum (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The current notability criteria for MMA fighters would make it impossible for new articles to ever be published. The proposed criteria allows for a lot more breathing room; two wins is more of an achievement than having three fights. Also, I agree with User:HeinzMaster regarding the difference between ONE Championship/PFL and KOTC/Jungle Fight and would like to propose including articles for champions from tier 2 promotions.


 * Comment: HeinzMaster, it is disappointed that after all the info and links provided that the proposal will not be approval in NSPORT, yet you would still want to go ahead to close the discussion which you can not as you are the one who raised the proposal. Secondly, I doublt most of you do ready read the info provided that the Wikipedia policy has already removed participant sportsman from being accepted notability guidelines and NPORT has removed NMMA the 3 fights under top tier promotion and also the fighters who fought for top tier championship bout recently, only if there are world rank top 10 or pass GNG. We would be not successful and do follow the Wikipedia guidelines as we are Wikipedians here.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  07:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving PFL to Top Tier
Hi Editors,

It looks like the Professional Fighters League now meets the criteria for a top-tier MMA promotion, according to the guidelines. For the past few months, PFL has had three female fighters (Kayla Harrison, Larissa Pachecho and Julia Budd) in the top five featherweight division, according to Fight Matrix. That should qualify it to be top-tier, right?

Tagging, , , , and , to get the conversation started!

Thank you again for all your help!

Camillefrancis (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Are we still doing tiers? Plus even under the old rules, pretty sure it had to be top 10 fighters in multiple divisions and not just one or else Rizin would have been one long ago due to Women's Atomweight. It's all based on General Notability, essentially if they get non-Fight Result/Announcement coverage in the media and is determined on a case-to-case basis. I was looking at some of the PFL people but I would need to search on Brazilian/Russian google to find if they have enough coverage since many of the foreign fighters have more articles in their native language then English. Ex/ Bruno Cappelozza, Ante Delija, Emiliano Sordi, Magomed Magomedkerimov HeinzMaster (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with what HeinzMaster said. Fighters now need to be ranked in their divisional top ten in order for an article to be made. It honestly doesn't matter if PFL is tier 1 or tier 3. GameRCrom (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's General Notability, but if they don't get covered by that, they can just be Top 10. Tiers don't really matter now at all, we should probably remove that eventually. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the old teir SSN notability guidelines for MMA has gone. Now the notability is based on ranking top ten under Sherdog or Fight Metrix or passes GNG.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  08:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like this was answered @Camillefrancis, but just to confirm what other editors have written: if the point of moving PFL "up" is to get other fighters pages live, like the ones @HeinzMaster listed, focusing on GNG is the way to go. FeldBum (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As everyone else has said, tiers are effectively useless. The old SNGs allowed participation based criteria, such as having X amount of games/fights in a top tier promotion/league. These guidelines were changed over a year ago, and tiers are no longer in use. It's unfortunate that a big chunk of our guidelines were cut down, but it's something we have to accept. <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:110%;color:#E285FF"> ♡RAFAEL♡</b>(<b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color#FF00FF">talk</b>) 23:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much everyone for your feedback!


 * Could you look at two fighters that are still in draft form that listed, Movlid Khaybulaev and Bruno Cappelozza, and tell me what sources or other information you need to help them go live?


 * Thank you again for all your help!


 * Camillefrancis (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * To pass GNG, the subject need to have significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mention. Coverage of their announced bout and the result of the match are considered routine report and can not be contributed to GNG requirements. Any interviews, sources that related/associated/affiliated with the subject such social media, their web site, their marketing team, their promoter, their friends/family and etc can not be used for the info is considered not independent. Hope this help.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  20:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)