Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 4

Arbitrary Break #6

 * Let me be clear about something: I wish everyone would quit nominating articles to AFD for a few weeks.  Let us settle the other issues first: 1. the omni system, 2. then the criteria issue which will have to go to RfC.  Right now, the AFDs are causing more drama and more drive by problems.  It won't kill you to hold off until a consensus is built.  You have every right to nominate whatever you want, I'm just asking this as a personal favor.  It isn't making my job any easier, or this task.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Another note 2012 in UFC events was the prototype for what we are trying to do. It needs refining, but Mt and TG (and many others who helped them) did an amazing job considering all the obstacles.  I may disagree with them on some things, but I respect them and know they act in good faith.  The ONLY reason we can consider moving forward now is because of these efforts by many different people, and this article allowed us to experiment and refine, try some things, figure out what worked and didn't.  Again, the idea on the table isn't MY idea, I just presented my interpretations of YOUR ideas, that were based on this previous work.  We fix one thing at a time: 1. Omni, which is a new tools that adds new uses and acts as a place for future events and a fail safe for articles that don't pass criteria (and even if most do, some don't) 2. Clarify the dang criteria at RfC with the larger community, so we all know exactly what the criteria is, and don't have to debate every single article for weeks on end.  3.  Create content.  After all, we ARE here to build an encyclopedia, and once these two are done, we can get back to actually creating content.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all about part 3! Looking forward to this being over. I'd like to reiterate my thanks to Agent for presenting the end-users' arguments well, and to Dennis for putting so much time into this process. It's all very much appreciated. Kind regards, Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dennis Brown Three things: I'll start with the one on omnibus design. Look, I could probably live with an omnibus (in the UFC's case, I am amenable to omnibuses done by year, and then additional annual omnibuses by outlet are probably fine; up until 2005, with just one oddball exception, every UFC event was on PPV and so it could just be done by year until then, and non-PPV events were aired exclusively on Spike domestically from 2005-2009, so it only gets more complicated starting 2010). What I can't agree to at all is the idea of removing data in the omnibus for more prose once articles get split off. Really, the omnibuses should be mainly for a quick scan of full event results in the existing tables including method of victory, round, time of round, and any notes of interest (like a "Fight of the Night" bonus, if a fighter failed a drug test afterward, if a fighter came in overweight necessitating a catchweight bout, if it was a championship bout, etc.), as well as event information for which there is an existing infobox, while individual articles should contain more prose with in-depth information. More prose is generally to provide deeper context, and that really ought to be reserved the individual articles, as a deeper context is something that almost all wikipedia articles that split off from an existing article is supposed contain. The raw information should be in both though.


 * Second: I appreciate your response to my re-statement above, but it doesn't explain why the UFC is specifically undeserving of fifth pillar protection despite everything that's been laid out. The MMA articles were not "anarchy" and I believe I gave enough reasons why. They were long established, uniform, codified, popular, well maintained, and belonged to what is arguably the fastest growing global sport of the last 15 years. Still, I wouldn't have brought that up more than once (that wasn't the first time I brought it up but was previously unanswered), but there are so many other sports that have sporting event articles of equal or lesser significance whose existence has never been challenged, and I believe specific examples have been given repeatedly now. With everything else the MMA Wiki project had going for it, it really does force the question: why MMA is specifically targeted when so many similar types of articles are not?


 * Third: perhaps we can agree upon at least how far apart we are? Would you consider articles where a new world champion was crowned in the historical top two promotions to be "off the table" for deletion, so to speak? Beansy (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Again, the idea on the table isn't MY idea, I just presented my interpretations of YOUR ideas". I think we're all aware that the process wouldn't be so contentious if the format included input from some users from the start instead of just the AfD team and then presented as something we should love. For example, I'm not sure where the Annual/Season idea came from, but that's pretty obvious it's already vastly overcrowded, yet the page already exists like this to anyone who visits now. We'll see if there's any leeway as promised or whether the omnibus is the final version "as is". BTW, the critical question in  "As a practical matter can we at get a clue as to what the boundaries of omnibus design ..." above still has not been answered even though you've taken copious time to attack me on the ANI page to fish for a ban. Agent00f (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the omni article is so overcrowded, perhaps it'll motivate you and other MMA enthusiasts to do something about it by improving the sections so they can be spun out to individual articles. Of couse this is predicated on the MMA enthusiasts wanting to improve the articles. Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not get ahead of ourselves with what might happen later. The clique till now has still been hammering away at AfD's in poor faith so there's no reason to believe their behavior in the future won't continue to change the course of events. In the meantime, in the spirit of good faith, can you help us get some clear answers to what WON'T be AfDed by at least the gang here so we can at least try to approach decisions in a reasonable matter? Agent00f (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think the omni should look like? Or is that not an avenue you're willing to consider? Again, I think it was fine the way it was but an overviewish omni page has potential to be good and useful IMO.  My preference to the "limits" of the omni page would be something like this, even though I don't know if we have enough content contributors to pull it off:  UFC and other major promotions would each have their own Omni page (like Bellator already does...we would have to figure out which promotions qualify as "major" and then maybe one other one for "2012 in minor/second tier/other/I don't know MMA events.")  On the UFC Omni, for each UFC event, including Fox, Fuel, and FX events, there would either be a link to the main article (sort of like how it's done for airline destinations, example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Jordanian#Destinations), and for the ones that don't have its own article, a blurb about when and where and any other cursory details, and then a table of results. Mreleganza (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm just trying to get the parameters of what's allowed by whomever is setting the threshold for notability (along with other critical questions above). That is generally how design starts: understand the boundaries and work within that space. I would also suggest users push back somewhat on what's tenable since this is after all still being call a "negotiation", even though Dennis feels people should be banned for even suggesting that there's leeway in a "compromise" (see his comments about "battle" in the ANI). What we've been given is a design (sorted by year) done by people who obviously have no idea how MMA works as a sport, and the unwieldy result is the consequence. For example, compare uf145 to ufc2012, there elements missing from the omnibus like payout which would make it even more ridiculous if they're added (which they should), and year is barely in may. Also note my longish criticism of flaws above. What's interesting is that a list of UFC events already exists which is now also redundant with long omnibuses.


 * I (and IMO most) would prefer a shorter format, but done with consistence/predictable divisions between pages so that it's easy to find yet manageable. I mean, this is a bunch of work being saddled on users while being decided by others, so we might as well design it as close to what we really want (ie. original) as possible. Agent00f (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Final note
I'm divorcing myself from this bad relationship. No permission is needed to build the omni, it has already stood up to scrutiny and has the support of the community, I just wanted it be a GROUP design decision. This is Wikipedia, you can make any article you want anyway. That point has been made time after time, but some people don't hear very well. I've tried for months to find solutions, dealing with self appointed protectors who haven't taken the time to go back into the archives and see the big picture. I've spent a lot of energy begging people to stop sending stuff to AFD until we can find common ground, but can't do that in good faith anymore. In private, many admins literally called me a fool for trying to help here, calling it a "toxic cesspool", and they were right. My goal was to come in as an outside party, protect the information in one form or another, as part of building an encyclopedia, by bridging "wants" with "encyclopedia needs". Neither side can restraint themselves or have the discipline to even maintain a singular line of conversation long enough for any change to happen, however, and seem to actually enjoy the drama, something I don't want to be associated with. The irony is that the obstructionists joined the party late thinking they were protecting the articles, yet they have shot themselves in the foot, putting more eyes on the situation, making deletions much more likely, not less likely.

Please understand that I'm unwatching this page, so I won't answer questions or even see them here. Please don't leave them on my talk page either, as I won't answer and inclined to just delete them, and I don't want to appear rude, but I'm serious about being "done". I have no more time to waste on this. Game over. If you would rather bicker and fight at AFD, I don't want to know about it, I no longer care. Obviously, my attempts to bridge the two sides have failed and I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward, Without the Bullshit
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Now that our revolution has occurred, what happens in the immediate aftermath will be important to the future of MMA articles on wiki. Please take a moment to reflect on the gravity of what's happened before continuing because what you do from this moment on will matter. Since we've all passed enough history classes to catch the mistakes of revolutionaries before us, the key goal for now is to prevent the situation from spiraling back into dictatorship. Another important point of business is to seek contributors with wiki-savvy (MMA interest preferred but by no means required) to help write the user's interests into new rules which remain within the boundaries of what is allowed. This is a new platform based on the spirit of the law, but with enough lettering mixed in to pass broader wiki community scrutiny. Our priority will always be to stakeholders who use and contribute, and try to work the rulebook to accommodate this, not the other way around. This is what wiki is about: the userbase, and do not let bureaucrats tell you otherwise. We've all been burned in the past which makes us all reluctant to trust again, but try to read everything henceforth with a fresh pair of eyes instead of old prejudices.

Personally I have no wish to command or supervise anyone unless circumstances are dire, so please listen to more eloquent or renowned folks who're better spokespeeps in these times of peace. There will not be a list of insiders like before, everyone with a reasoned voice is welcome here. But given we all know how these social experiments have failed previously, some are going to be more welcome than others........j/k. The previous executives chased a lot of good honest people away, so let your wiki friends know we're back with a new business-casual atmosphere. At some point in the future, it's likely that an admin will cross our path to approve any formalized spec. They might naturally push back. Extend them the same courtesy as you would extend me or anyone else, because that's what compromise is about.

It cannot be stress enough that there are eyes on us now from higher places. Let's show them that we're not what they think we are, but in fact better than what they pretend to be. Instead of simply assuming egalitarian values, we can demonstrate them. Now allow me to be contradictory: Let loose, have a good time, for we are free at last.

Bit more to come tomorrow, comrades.... :)  Agent00f (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can all move even more forward tomorrow. Portillo (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're leading a particular group on here, Agent00f, you're their spokesperson, and that's a valuable contribution. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (@Agent00f) I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but even starting out but starting out you make assertions which demonstrate bad faith. Part of demonstrating good faith is choosing words which do not prejudice the discussion. Please consider your words carefully as written text doesn't communicate the verbal and non-verbal cues that chatting with a friend does. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually laughed when I read the guideline posted, and this interpretation of it. This is nothing short of hilarious. Wiki-lawyers: They're just like real lawyers, except they aren't educated, they don't get paid and they don't actually end up achieving anything. I recommend Law School. I'm no longer frustrated. Just extremely smug and amused. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What's been going on
I promised an update in the section above (click "show" to see), which I delivered on. Unfortunately it was deleted wholesale by MtKing in direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule, and its reversion was collaboratively prevented by MtKing and TreyGeek via a 3RR loophole. Ongoing AN regarding this issue HERE. There's no reason to post any more specifics of a counter-proposal since it'll be deleted anyway. Agent00f (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the Solution
I have already said what I think on the deletion review for this page, but I will paste on here what has been said. After everyone reads it this must be discussed as a workable system that will not affect either the separate pages or the omnibus pages anymore.


 * I have the solution! I have written to Jimbo Wales on his talkpage for help as this whole thing has gotten too far, and User:Wikid77 has come up with the best solution. It is on the talkpage but for those who would point blank refuse to go on it, I will bring what he said on here -

"Seems reasonable to have 30 UFC-event articles per year: The long-term tradition appears to be workable, to have separate articles for each of the UFC events, especially considering there are only about 30 major events per year. Obviously, there will be enough news sources for each sporting event, and with only 30 per year, then later reports will often re-mention the earlier events to strengthen their notability for separate articles. The added yearly article ("2012 in UFC events") would be workable if kept condensed, with links to the larger, separate UFC-event articles. This situation is similar to hurricane articles, where some people have questioned the notability of each storm, and if a hurricane stayed out at sea (and only a few islands or ships were affected), then deletionists have tried to ax the separate pages, in favor of the yearly article, such as "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" listing 28 tropical storms and 15 hurricanes for year 2005, where the major storms included Hurricane Katrina (August), Hurricane Rita (September), and Hurricane Wilma (October), but also the July storms Hurricane Emily (2005) and Hurricane Dennis were considered to be powerful storms. Try not to be upset about people being obsessed with deleting articles, but also remember that having a yearly article (such as "2012 in UFC events") does not mean the separate UFC-event articles must be deleted. Both the separate and yearly UFC articles can be kept, as with each year's hurricane articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)"

So as you can see, maybe the best solution isn't to have one or the other, but to have BOTH on here, the separate pages AND the Omnibus pages on Wikipedia, that way everyone is satisfied, all the right boxes for the topic is ticked, and the information is just as easily accessible for those who are looking for this information as before. I think somewhere down the lines people have forgotten that people aren't interested in Wikipedia for debating how the information is presented (if its present at all) but to find what they are looking for and read it, and thats what matters.

For this reason I am now going to change my vote to Keep both separate event pages AND Omnibus event pages, and I hope you all do the same! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would have no objection to having the single articles remain and the omnibus exist as well.  I suppose that would give people the option to utilize whichever system they prefer.  I personally think the omnibus is way too cumbersome and I don't like it so I would only use the single page articles, but I also would have no objection to an omnibus coexisting. Pull lead (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is the result of the review, then the first thing we ALL need to do is call a truce between each other, in which we stop the bickering, the insults and end all AfDs on the separate and omnibus UFC pages because it has been going nowhere and we need a realistic solution that works for all. We will then need to discuss removing the merge links from the UFC events on the 2012 in UFC events such as UFC 152, and then we should have directory links on the separate pages to the 'Year in' omnibus pages and vice versa. Then all users will work to regularly update both the separate pages and omnibus pages from then on so that neither page would be without the same information.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to do. In the end of the day, Wikipedia is about finding information you want/need to find, and Wikipedia is the best place to find what your looking for. For the MMA community, Wikipedia has been a vital source to finding out fight event results from the night before if they weren't able to watch the event. For people who edit on Wikipedia all the time, I can understand you have policies that you must follow but at the same time why does it have to be a 'our system or no system' approach to this? It's like I pointed out before the references for the 2012 in UFC events page are virtually identical to that of the separate pages, and when you think about the fact that its is only the 5th month of the year and there are over 100 references on the omnibus page, largely from MMA websites, then how is it much different to have separate pages with only a handful of the same references directly for the same event? You must remember as well it doesn't matter how it is presented, it is always going to be viewed by certain certain people, which in this case is the UFC/MMA community. This is why I want you guys as well to agree that keeping both the omnibus pages and the separate pages is the best solution and I want you to back me on that! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 109 IP, in the future, please do not cross post discussions from other locations into here. It gives the impression that peoples comments made elsewhere are addressed to this location.  The simple link to the archives is sufficient to link our discussion to the original one so the context of the discussion can be understood. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And that is what I think so far. If anyone agrees with me, please discuss this idea with other users, no matter if they were for just the separate pages or the omnibus pages. 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest issue I see with this, is it isn't backed up by any policy, and I may be wrong, but Jimbo will probably want this issue resolved the way other issues are resolved, developing policy at RfC. That said, I think it's fine to make these arguments at am RfC, but we have to have new notability guidelines to get there. I would suggest engaging in discussion At WP:MMANOT so we can bring a plan, possibly two to RfC.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is you are only approaching this from a whats good for MMA fans using this as their go to resource for MMA info. Scrapnotability because noone will agree on that? That is what coming up with new notability guidlines at RfC is about. A problem arises if the only interest an editor has in wikipedia and it's policies are in relation to a single subject or in this case the structuring of information on WP. WP is supposed to be a user edited encyclopedia, it should cover things that an encyclopedia would, the way an encyclopedia would, but not be hampered with the ill effects of only having paid expert contributors. The reason it can work with amateurs is the WP:IRS policy and others.No one is suggesting that we rid MMA from WP, only that it be covered in an encyclopedic way. You don't have to totally agree with the proposals that have been made to take to RfC for notability, but you have to offer constructive ideas and alternatives. Flogging WP:POLICY and editors that put WP over any single interest won't get us to a solution, neither will standing on a WP:SOAPBOX about how the status quoe works and it should be left.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the argument here now, what is being said is the very thing I'm trying to say that the omnibus pages, in fact, shows less notability as when there were individual pages. I'm going to use UFC 144 as my example for what I'm going to say now. On the page you can clearly see that there are 16 references on the page (by my standard, that is pretty good for a page), now on the 2012 in UFC events section, there are just 7 references covering the event, how does that show the events notability any better than on the individual pages? The same 7 references are on the UFC 144 event page anyway, including the sources from FOX, Yahoo and ESPN so I still fail to see the difference. It also lacks any of the information people usually expects to see on the individual pages such Leonard Garcia George Sotiropoulos brief involvements to the event before their injuries, or the fact that tickets for the event cost between ¥5,800 and ¥100,000 (ca. US$70 – US$1250). (all of which have references, but not present on 2012 in UFC events page). This is stuff that has gone missing due to the fact that the omnibus pages limits what each event has.


 * Now one thing I must remind people of, no matter what you believe, the way that something is presented makes all the difference between people wanting to view it and not wanting to view it. The old system worked really well on the grounds that it was simple to get hold of the information, easy to find what you were looking specifically and wasn't hard to location through a search item, plus because it was a largely agreed upon system, it also received regular updates in which both the information and the sources were added, in most cases, within minutes of when the news broke out. The omnibus page has received a lot of criticism because it really is hard to navigate through, each event doesn't gives us a lot of information about the event other than just the fight results, is not updated frequently enough, pieces of the page is still missing such as UFC 151 and UFC 153, each event shows less notability than the individual pages (which I just pointed out) and the overall distaste the page has for the very people that the page, unquestionably, is targeted for. There must be some level of WP:COMMONSENSE that no matter what, if the target audience is not satisfied with the new look, it will hurt idea of using Wikipedia at all! People who believe in the omnibus pages, you must understand that if you start to shove you ideal solutions into people's heads when they feel happy with the current system, then destroy and then replace what the prefer with a different system with clear visual flaws and then prevent the original system from returning, they will definitely get irritated, annoyed, even angry.


 * Now I am not saying delete the omnibus page, as there are people who are more Wikipedians than MMA fans that prefer the omnibus page, as it meets nearly all the policies it should do, but why not create a middle-way to ensure that all side (at least for just UFC events) are happy? This has been going on for months now and it has resulted in many users from both sides permanently left Wikipedia, destroyed pages, over 10s of 1000s of characters used to debate on MMA events alone, and with no clear end in sight in the near future, why not make it happen now by both sides mutually agreeing to keep both systems of separate event pages and the omnibus pages, with direct links on each pages from the other system, and all users actively help build each page's notability? This is the most level headed thing I've said throughout this whole debate, and the best decision that come out of this situation. 86.149.148.121 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at your example, UFC 144, I would be opposed to merging. There is enough content (in addition to not meeting the weigh in limit) that the article could (in my mind) survive on it's own.  I'd still want to include a 3~5 sentence synopsis of the event in the omnibus with a link to the main article.
 * I notice your very long post and going back shortly after to add some content that changes your meaning afterwords. If you're currently blocked on a registered account you really should not edit anything on Wikipedia while you're blocked as it's considered evading your block (and could be grounds for an extended block). Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying 'merge' the UFC 144 page to 2012 in UFC events, but instead have both pages run active on here, with a link at the top of each page/section of the omnibus page directing them to the other version of the same event. Like this -

(For separate event pages)''This page covers a UFC event in a separate format. For a different view of the same event, go to 2012 in UFC events.''

(For omnibus page for each event section)''This section covers a UFC event in a omnibus format. For a different view of the same event, go to UFC 144.''

This is what I mean, and with ALL UFC events brought back to their separate pages, we can do this to satisfy both the MMA community and the Wikipedia community. 86.149.148.121 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, having 2 different formats is absolutely not going to work as editors are likely to come around, look at both versions and make a decision to remove one of the two and we're back where we started. All UFC events being brought back is probably not going to happen as most had proper AfD discussions, a few had Deletion Review discussions, and the community of Wikipedia users has yet to see a workable split of content demonstrated by the MMA community. the Wikipedia community has challenged the MMA community several times to demonstrate a workable format that will meet the requirements for WP.  All the WP community has received back is hostility, personal attacks, calls for the status quo to continue, WP:CANVASSing, Puppetry, and repeated WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that have ground the process of forming a new consensus that both communities can live with to a halt.  Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage of the event, even by ESPN etc, is not inherently able to satisfy WP:GNG, or WP:MMAEVENT. Individuals brief involvement in the event, ticket prices,etc are not notable, unless it's the first time ever tickest cost a certain amount. None of this "missing coverage" is limited from the Omnibus. Honestly you will get alot more leeway in the Omnibus(s). There will obviously be examples that should have stand alone articles, UFC146 for example with overeem and the drug issue.Wikipedia is not designed to be useful only to fans of the sport, someone doing research should be able to come to the encyclopedia and not have to dig through the trival information and non notable events in the long run, to accomplish their goal. The format must be friendly and encyclopedic for all, not just hardcore mma fans. That is not what wikipedia is. Thats what bloodyelbow is, what Sherdog is,what an MMAwiki would be. A Wiki and Wikipedia are two totally different things.Newmanoconnor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC).


 * But just think about this for a second. I'd say that a strong 8/10 people who comes to a particular page on Wikipedia do it because it interests them or is an interest of theirs (i.e. hobby, favourite sport, something they were looking forwards to etc.) and the other 2/10 people probably go to the page because they may of just heard about, noticed it by chance or just clicked onto it by accident. Those 8/10 people would want to see as much detail about the event as possible, so why must we start taking away from these events and stripping it down to its foundations? I get what your saying but that is why I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting! Give everyone what they want.


 * The MMA community loves the individualism of each UFC event, whilst Wikipedians are satisfied with the omnibus pages, so why not allow both to co-exist? Have all the separate UFC event pages to have a link at the top of their pages with a link to the omnibus page and a link on the section of the omnibus page directing them to the separate event page? It is a system that works for all, makes all happy and end all these arguments once and for all. By forcing us all to keep the omnibus pages without question, then destroy the omnibus pages, it has put all all 80+% of the people who view these events off using Wikipedia for this information for life. Yes it may meet Wikipedia policies now, but at what cost has it come with? Scaring off the core viewers of the pages is the true result off is what has happened here. There was virtually no point of ever changing the system if it was known that most of the regular people who look at these pages specifically were going to be put off because of it.


 * It can be saved, as long as those who agreed to the omnibus pages agree to allow all the separate event pages to be de-merged and returned as they were, then both sides can work to add the links to each omnibus and separate event pages to the other, then in turn we can help you in creating 2011 in UFC events, working backwards until we reach 1993 in UFC events (though I think there was only 2 or three that year so maybe pointless to do so) under the same system of each separate page has a link to the omnibus page and vice versa. This will work, give it a trial if nothing else, what have you got to lose now, people have already stopped using Wikipedia to find UFC related stuff because of this, this could help bring them back! 86.149.148.121 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cause for concern, the ratings bit would obviously be toward showing notability, but only if it's some dramatic turn downward, record ow, etc and satisfies continuing coverage. Other than that it is all airly routine outcomes from this type of sporting event. I do want to go back and read it again, and find some other sources if I can. Do you know of any ESPN,ABC,CBS,NYT,LAT,NBC,FOX,SI,main stream non MMA only sources that have covered any of those subsections in more detail?Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why some of you are in such a hurry to ruin such a popular aspect of Wikipedia. UFC events are inherently notable. Omnibus the smaller organizations. Tag the UFC articles that need to be fleshed out. I don't get why this is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.61.237 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore the inherently notable argument for now. How do we know which MMA events to omnibus and which to have as individual articles?  It's easy to tell in some cases, but there are some mid-level promotions where this decision is not so easy.  The purpose of the notability guidelines to to provide guidance to figure out these questionable cases.  Wikipedia has a certain level of rules and policies we must comply with, if this were an MMA-focused away from Wikipedia then the situation would likely be different.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In cases where it is not easy to tell: Let's err on the side of caution, instead of just deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.47.18 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll apologise in advance if my comments here don't follow established syntax or guidelines, but hopefully they aren't ignored because of that. I'm an MMA fan and have followed the MMA deletion discussions for weeks (or more) during that time I have tried my best to read up on the policies et all. I realise people popping up out of nowhere have been accused of being 'sockpuppets' or 'meatpuppets' etc, so feel free to check my IP address or whatever you need to do. Anyway, the discussion seems to just be going around in circles with no real resolution in sight, so thought I may as well put my 2c in.

I understand that those in the delete/merge camp have flagged the articles mainly for just being routine sports coverage (or in other cases being created a long time before they occur). The former is really on the MMA fans/editors, because almost every MMA wiki article could easily have more prose if they cared about the pages as vehemently as they appear to. UFC 145 for example, had very little mention of the backstory between Jon Jones and Rashad Evans, even going into a little detail on the history of that would have given several paragraphs, and citations aplenty. The WWE articles based on their pay per views, all have prose including backstory, a bit of a summary of the matches, as well as listed results. If the MMA editors were prepared to do something similar for the MMA pages, rather than just list the fights and the results, then that might go some way to at least putting them into the same basket as WWE.

With the drastic increase in UFC events over the past few years though, I can understand the wiki editors arguments against a standalone artice for each and every event, sometimes there are now 3-4 UFC events in a month, as compared to the earlier schedule or one event every month or two. So, I think that merging articles would be a good idea, but I think they should be merged into several small articles each year rather than just one big one.

For example, something along the lines of:
 * UFC numbered events (2012) - Gives UFC 142 to 145
 * UFC on Fox events (2012) - Gives UFC on Fox 2 & 3
 * UFC on FX events (2012) - Gives UFC on FX 1 & 2
 * UFC on Fuel TV events (2012) - Gives UFC on Fuel TV 1 & 2
 * UFC forthcoming events (2012) - Gives everything from UFC on Fuel 3 up to UFC 154, which are moved into the other relevant pages as they occur.

Here you can see these kind of breakdown articles would not get cluttered with ~30 events on the one page, which is a major criticism of the current omnibus article, which could event be kept as a summary of the year and link through to the above pages etc.

If people wanted to (eventually) go back and merge past pages you could break it down into Numbered events for past years, Spike and Versus events etc as well.

One thing the current omnibus article really lacks (in my opinion) are the posters, I think they are crucial to the look and feel of the pages and help separate one article/event from the next.

So there you have the suggestions from an outside observer (tldr version);
 * Don't have individual pages (unless an event becomes extra noteworthy)
 * Categorise them into common sense sub articles which won't get too long
 * Add images for the posters and some prose going into more detail about the background of the events, the leadup, the matches themselves, and maybe even post event fallout etc rather than just result listing. JShep2010 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary section break

 * 90% of what you've proposed for a solution is covered by the above mentioned proposal that was suggested by Mtking.
 * Having the "Future Events" sub article just seems a bit overkill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the event is announced we typically will be able to know what "bucket" it belongs to.  Yes the numbered events article will get exceedingly large depending on how many we have in a single year, but it's encouragement to develop the content for the individual events so we can split them at a later date.
 * Because the posters are copyrighted we have to dance around the issue of a free licence or a fair use rationale.
 * In short, typically as part of an individual article when we include a poster, it's because a Fair Use Rationale can be written explaining that the poster is important to the subject at hand for understanding why the subject is important or to help identify the subject if someone goes out to buy the product.
 * In the Omnibus articles we might be able to include a image of the logo that the promotion is using for the year (if it changes) but we really can't justify the posters.
 * I apologize for the very long winded explanation, but I'm happy to explain the ins and outs of the policy. I still admit I'm pretty green behind the ears, but I can speak quite well about certain sections of the tau of the community. Hasteur (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think given the nature of the omnibus article we should be okay with a poster for each event that doesn't have it's own article. If an event gets split off I don't think we can use the FUR poster on both, it should go only on the event article.  I think the images in the big article will probably need to be smaller than a stand-alone article though.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt the FUR for having a poster for each even in the omnibus is going to fly as the posters are now illustrating a section of content by depending on the good graces of Fair Use to get the display. WP:NFCC gives the exact listing of what we must do in order to include an image.  It would probably be a good idea to get a pre-approval at Media copyright questions before the issue of posters goes any further. Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but sometimes I'm an optimist, even around here! I think floating the question over there would be a an ideal way to head off possible drama though!  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Spliting/collapsing off topic postings from main threads
As has been recommended at WP:AN the way to contain disruptive off topic discussions from derailing productive threads I therefore make the following proposal.

Proposal: Any sequence of posts that is deemed by 3 editors to be off topic or deliberately disruptive to an ongoing conversation may be moved to it's own topic with a small note where the posts were to allow editors to follow the entire conversation if they wish. Reversions against this split of discussion are to be treated as vandalism and subject to the full force of the vandalism removal tool set (including warnings, reporting to the appropriate noticeboard, temporary blocks, indefinite blocks).

Please give a simple yes/no and your signature for this proposal


 * Yes Hasteur (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes   Ravenswing   16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this meant to be parody? Good thing for the rest of us there are 3 editors who always seem to vote in a block on this topic. It's a mystery why anyone ever claimed they brazenly dominate the agenda to the exclusion of other voices. The only missing piece of this comedy is the rule that it requires 3 editors to pass this proposal. Agent00f (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Off topic and not in line with the procedure for this proposal Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: the comedy is now fulfilled beyond my own expectations. Agent00f (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Off topic and not in line with the procedure for this proposal Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, since you seem to have no compunctions against editing others comments for them, for future convenience you can just mark my ballot the opposite of whatever you're doing by default, so: no. (unless you see fit to change it later). Agent00f (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Striked off topic commentary, left the appropriate part of the ballot Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the proposal
Can someone please clarify if arbitrary violations of policy like TALKO editing (like the strikeouts above) are allowed as "procedure" within any given "proposal"? This is confusing because not a week ago Hasteur et al were threatening final ANI ultimatums for transgressing much lessor statutes, but this week wanton violations seem permissible because they say so. Maybe these kind of thoughts are just the crazy fanboy in me talking. Agent00f (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward, no need to wait
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Putting aside the RFC for just a moment, lets work on something we might all be able to agree and work on. This is a rough idea, based on the ideas and hard work mainly of Mtking and TreyGeek, after hearing the concerns of everyone, adding some tweaks, and after consulting the almighty Wikibible. I can take no credit for the idea, unless you think it sucks, then I guess I will take all the blame ;) This has nothing to do with individual articles at all, and works whether or not they exist, in whole or in part. Just clear them from your mind, or pretend they all will exist, it doesn't matter for this omnisystem. Even if we include every single UFC event in separate articles, having an omnibus system will very cool because it will allow you to see all the matches at a glance, including links, results, etc.  We can debate the names I'm using another day, first I want to focus on the structure only.  Obviously, you can insert the appropriate year as needed. And please use your imagination, this can be tweaked in many ways, small or large.  Think about it a bit.

(This article has the least amount of info per event, but it will list every single events that happens for the entire sport. It is kind of like a table of contents of sorts, and links all the individual articles and the subsections.  No images.  It might show the main event, but not every single event.  It is more of a quick guide, with links to the other main pages below.  Not pretty but extremely useful in limited circumstances as it puts EVERY match in one place, something that appears to be missing now.  Likely, each entry should be one or two lines in a clean table, with no results.  This makes it easy to maintain as it is mainly a gateway article.)
 * List of UFC events (2012)

This is just like 2012 in UFC events now, but limited to FX matches so it won't be so long. It lists matches, with prose of highlights, images of the poster when appropriate and if legal, just like the current (but oversized) omni. Think of it as a collection of mini-articles, and it can have MAIN tags to the primary individual article. Even when we all agree that an event doesn't justify a separate article yet, it will get the respect it deserves here. These will be the most useful, since you can compare the results of many, many matches all on one page.
 * UFC on FX 2012

See above, same thing different channel, and do the same for all channels...
 * UFC on Fuel TV 2012

Same as above, but for listing the numbered events like UFC 143, etc. I have no idea what to call it, help me out here.
 * UFC ???


 * Individual articles - (not an issue for this proposal. This proposal works regardless.)

Overview

 * PROS - It doesn't matter what individual articles exist, these omnibus articles are useful. You can quickly get a feel for the entire year on FX or Fuel TV at a glance.  When a future match is announced you always start it in the omni article and add it to the yearly directory. You then create a redirect with the future name (ie: UFC on FX 200 ) and point it toward the UFC on FX 2012 (or whatever omni) article for now.  The information will exist, no one is likely to try to delete the redirect, the information is safe.  Once there is enough information and sources to allow it to be a full article, you just recreate the article over the redirect (no admin needed).  Even if an article goes to AFD, the information can't be deleted because it exists in the omni.  Worst case scenario, it becomes a redirect (under the same naming convention you already use) and points to the exact same info in the omni.  Data, results, prose, none of that can ever be lost.  Because it is now a redirect, the article history itself is never lost.  This makes it way, way easier to recreate the article once it does meet notability.  This is particularly true for future events which don't have much coverage.


 * CONS - It is a little more work, but not much. For example on a future event, you create the section in UFC on FX 2012, you add a line in the main List of UFC events (2012) pointing towards it, then create the redirect in main space and point it to the UFC on FX 2012 section (same link as in the List of).  Once notable, the article is just placed over the redirect, no admin is needed.


 * BIG BIG PRO - One of the biggest advantages of this is that most matches will start in UFC on FX 2012 (or similar) so the tables and info will be uniform across all articles, and you will be able to add and add and add until it is complete, with NO fear of AFD. A stress free place to build the future article.  The subarticles are pretty safe because even if a few of the events might not pass muster as "notable", I would fight hard to convince others that the grouping as whole ARE.  Once it clearly passes criteria, you merge/copy the info from the omni to the individual article.  Most of the time, it won't pass criteria until after the event, so the omni will have the results already, just copy over, then in the new article, you add extra prose until your heart is content. Keep in mind, it still has to pass criteria as a stand alone article, but that doesn't change anything inside the omni articles.

Again, much of this is simply restating what Mtking and TreyGeek have previously done with one big exception: Forget about what articles belong and don't for now, just we just build the thing and hash out the individual article later. No RFC is needed for this part of the solution and there will be instant benefits in usability and the amount of material here. This omnibus system is useful because it offers additional coverage, ability to compare matches on one page, a safe haven for results, and is handy whether or not anything else is done.

Feel free to point out the holes or failures in my logic, I can take it. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 1
That's perfect... I'd suggest UFC Numbered Events in 2012 for the non-channel series of events. This does mean that the numbered events sub-omni will be significantly larger than the other ones, but that only encourages editors to develop the content so that we can properly spin out the individual numbered events. The only thing I can think is possibly a big edit notice that we slap on each of the redirected articles (and ones we discover) so that the effort is not wasted on de-redirecting something that isn't ready for it's own article. Hasteur (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea along with Haster's point. I also think it would be a good idea to have omnibus pages for Bamma, I really am not interested in just getting rid of MMA stuff, the really minor stuff I think should not be included but 2nd tier(I think) like Bamma and Strikeforce would probably need a single Omnibus for quite awhile. I'm more than willing to do the work, but I need some help with the formatting.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a sidebar, 2012 in Super Fight League was created partially as a last frustration of a editor, but the "evil 3" decided to let it remain and be a vehicle for the SFL event chain. Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with this course of action, if it can be shown that the aim is to cover the events in a way consistent with existing WP existing policy, maybe the fans will understand it. On a procedural note when (if) we go this route it would be crucial to use the with a centralised discussion point and rap that in with a RfC header.  Mt  king (edits) 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly this is the kind of top-down bureaucratic attitude that drives away actual stakeholders (ie users/readers) from interest in the discussion and ultimately away from wiki. Whether this is intentional is debatable, but the consequences are clear. To make the logic surround "rules" crystal, note that generalizations (ie rules) are only valid with an understanding of the unlying specifics. To borrow a very common example from above, without some knowledge of how MMA works on the ground, it's farcical to random apply rules from other sports in the hopes that they fit by coincidence. Again, rules as generalities only have meaning when they're derived from a correct comprehension of reality, not when they are divined by dogma, esp. via other rules. Humanity learned this from the scientific revolution about two hundred years ago, but the broad consensus among wiki insiders still seems to be to start with law and work reality into it somehow instead of the other way around. This argument will of course be ignored like all others which makes perfect sense because the process can proceed regardless.Agent00f (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I opened a discussion at Talk:BAMMA about how I intend to merge all of the BAMMA events together into one article. Please feel free to make comments.  I'll go back through the individual articles and re-tag them with the link to the discussion Hasteur (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps pointing them here might be more effective, and keep it on one page. Just to prevent confusion.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that BAMMA can be a part of this, and would like want to make sure they know this idea is on the table, and take several days to make sure that we have a consensus for this upgrade of the MMA coverage. For that matter, the directory type article can be "List of MMA events 2012", not just UFC if there is a consensus to expand this the entire sport.  But I want to make sure that everyone has had the time to comment, offer ideas, and most importantly: be heard.  If I've learned anything while I've been here, it is that we all need to be working together and compromise a little bit to get good things done.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the mechanics outside of AfD and others to WP:SOFIXIT on the series of articles. I'll include a pointer at this centralized discussion in the merger proposal Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work there, Dennis. One thing I would like to point out is that a List of UFC events already exists. Perhaps List of UFC events (2012) would be redundant? Also, the UFC has televised events on FOX (I think 5 total this year). For the sake of consolidation, you might consider doing the following:


 * UFC Numbered Events in 2012 (per Hauser's title suggestion above)
 * UFC on TV in 2012 (this could incorporate all of the Fuel, FX and FOX events, which will total 16 or so)

In the end, I can see them existing like the Bellator Fighting Championships season pages. Udar55 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm wanting to happen. Not to give you the answers, but to offer some ideas and let you guys, the ones that really know MMA, figure out the proper solutions.  Think I will sit back a bit and let you discuss...  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't think there are much in the way of interested users of these pages left at all for the reasons stated above. In a real sense the bureaucrats have already won if this is going forward regardless with implementation details rather than a discussion of what actual value change brings. The lack of any summary of the broader decision making is already evidence that those interested in that conversation need not apply. Agent00f (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been out of this discussion for a couple weeks now, and I don't know if this is the right section to put this comment (feel free to move it if it belongs somewhere else). I probably read this on a talk page somewhere, but I can't find it.  Regarding naming conventions, while in the past I supported the 2012 in UFC format, I have been doing some thinking (that was the burning smell) and have an idea (again, probably read it somewhere else first).  As UFC events are not "seasonal" like baseball, basketball, and the like (as mentioned below), the grouping by year may not be the best way to go (for the numbered events).  What about a UFC 100-109 format?  Sticking to a set number of events per article (in this case ten), rather than all events of a given year.  The issue with the dated titles is the early years are going to be small (less events per year) while the more recent will be larger (more events per year), as UFC popularity grows, and more events are held per year, I only see this issue compounding.  I like the UFC on TV suggestion above, or something similar, this is just a suggestion for the numbered events, and if someone knows where I originally heard this, please post a link, because I am sure I didn't come up with this on my own. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, feel free to disregard my suggestion if it will not help progress the discussion at hand, as I don't want to stall the discussion, but I thought it might be a good format to adopt.--kelapstick(bainuu) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else brought up the issue on my talk page. I can't find any clarity at MOS, so I would need someone more familiar to pipe in if the consensus agrees to the general structure.  However it was broken down, the basic structure would still work.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

General Objection
From the view of promoting good design and presentation, this structure has all the elements of a poor one. First, the distinction of where things belong is completely arbitrary. MMA is not a seasonal sport, and there's no real distinction in the sport between where events are first broadcasted, so right from the get go users are confused about how the info is segregated since it follows no logic of the relevant subject. For example, UFC events are sometimes broadcast on free venues after their PPV debut, so how is a user to know that what they just saw is on the other page instead? The only way this could possibly make any sense is that the individual articles don't contain enough stuff so let's just cram them all together so they cross some arbitrary threshold (and by arbitrary I mean only exists in the head of a small minority of editors) of stuff. Second, exactly where info is available to a user is also inconsistent even after they've grasped this poor formatting. Previously, if a user thinks of a card (much like a seasonal sports fan would think of a year, or a team) they can directly navigate there and see what's available instead of sometimes to a page title that bears no relationship to what they're thinking about, all depending on when they had interest and who's been editing/adding information. It also presents a less uniform front for search engines which is probably where most readers come from. Fundamentally, the original format is exactly what everyone with any knowledge (and thereby interest) of the sport would expect, rather than what arbitrary interpretation of rules would dictate.

Given these types of fundamental deal-breaking flaws present in the basic design without even going into details, it's scary to think that it ever made it past first level of committee in the first place. Frankly I can't find any purpose to this new format other than placating the needs of an idle bureaucracy (please argue the case if this is wrong instead of just moving on anyway as has been the custom here). There have been many comments from users actually familiar with subject that it makes zero real world sense and unfortunately this is moving forward without addressing their concerns at all. Agent00f (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved your objections at the bottom instead of in the middle, as it is proper and polite to do so, as to respect the flow of the conversation. Your opinions are noted.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  02:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, though I wish it were addressed instead of just noted. Originally I thought it was best to put it directly underneath your call for general comments since it's not directly related to the implementation details in the "discussion" area. Agent00f (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agent00f, one thing that you may be missing, is that if a all the events of one year are in the same article (say 2012 for instance), and someone types in UFC 143, they are be taken to the section of the 2012 in UFC events that relates to UFC 143 not the top of the article, so they do not have to navigate the page, they will be taken to the section that they are looking for. I don't expect this to change your opinion on the matter, I just want to make sure you understand that they will be directed to the section in question and not just to the top of the page.--kelapstick(bainuu) 09:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I took into account redirects in my comment. They make the interface inconsistent for both users and search engines, resulting in less interest from readers and less hits from web search of the exact same info. Given that none of the deletionist contingent here have contested these or any other such concerns, it only provides further evidence that this what they desired in the first place. Agent00f (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I just did a Google search of UFC 143. UFC 143 was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion, and yesterday I created a redirect to the appropriate section in the 2012 article.  The first entry in the Google search was the Wikipedia article (under the heading UFC 143), and when I selected it I was taken to the correct section within the 2012 article, so I don't understand what you mean by an inconsistent interface with search engines.  Regardless, as I said I didn't expect to change your opinion on the matter, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you would be taken to the appropriate section within the article, which you did.  Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained what I meant to Dennis below, so please read that for a longer explanation. The short of it is that it's not so much the engine cannot find the material, but way the results show up and are sorted. Dennis never replied to the specifics, so I somewhat doubt he has in-depth expertise. Agent00f (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with many actions by many people, which is why I would rather focus on what we do agree with. The omni system works and adds usefulness regardless what other articles exist.  It is the safe haven for new or undersourced articles in addition to adding new ways to look at data.  Doing them by year is common and within the guidelines here, when you group anything, you have to choose an arbitrary cutoff, this is no different.  Agent, I don't find your arguments persuasive, nor your condescending tone in delivering them.  Since you see no purpose for this system, and it doesn't depend on individual articles existing or not, your constant calls against "bureaucracy" only distract rather than discuss.  As far as search engines, you are mistaken.  Search engines are fully capable, and do, deliver results of sections via redirect headers.    Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  10:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's your purpose and priority here to reach a "compromise" between a very small anti-MMA contingent vs. the entire userbase of these pages (and therefore find arguments against the compromise to be axiomatically unpersuasive regardless of their merits). It must be a difficult task given that no one with any understanding of how the sport works can appreciate (a different sort of thing than accept) the changes and the bureaucrats won't be pleased until they live up to their namesake. The main point here is that an argument based on the quality of the user experience (aka the fundamental point of design) should be meaningful to anyone concerned about the wiki user, but unfortunately it's become obvious that's not even on the ranked list of priorities. BTW, this is simply a statement of fact, it's been clarified numerous times and if anyone had a reasoned rebuttal they would've used it by now. As I've already mentioned, sometimes reality paints people in a bad light, and IMO the solution to this is to change the reality so that it doesn't instead of complain about the observation. As for search engines, I'm well aware that they're technically capable of indexing redirect headers, but unless sort algs are intelligent enough to combine user clicks/activity from both sources (which they aren't), it means that resultant rankings will necessarily be lower and inconsistently so between event links. Again, tautologically not persuasive for those unconcerned about end user experience. Finally, in light of all this, this phrase is rather odd: "distract rather than discuss"; to people who actually use these pages, it's the distraction of incessant focus on rules minutia over reality which has prompted champions of usability to leave rather than participate in a administrative charade where their inputs and numbers are ever diminished. I don't blame you for this result since it's the natural systemic consequence of the process involved, but you are at fault for unquestioning support for the process. Agent00f (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I might not know MMA, but I have a high degree of confidence when it comes to search engines, due to my day job. They already weight heavily toward Wikipedia, and give solid results.  Go google "UFC 149" for example.  The first result is the section in 2012 in UFC events.   And that was just the first example I tried.  The search engine problem, well it isn't a problem.  I appreciate the concern but it is misplaced.  This omnibus system isn't meant to replace the existing system, is meant to serve two purposes:  1. Add functionality to the existing system.  2.  Preserve data until an article can stand on its own two legs.  It isn't required to use the existing system, doesn't change the existing naming system (rather, it depends on it).  I understand a degree of paranoia regarding AFDs, but they are already happening.  I've gone out on a limb to stop them until we reach consensus here (see yesterday's ANI).  I've also privately "communicated" to several people that the AFDs should stop.  This IS the best compromise as it doesn't force anyone to do anything.  And again, I still think it adds some cool functionality.  If the only question is how useful it is, I would say to judge it after it is built, then simply don't use it if you don't find it useful.  And the only reason I am here IS about the rules: to find consensus, clarity, and put an end to endless battles over "the rules" at AFD. Otherwise, the battleground at AFD will continue, and data will be lost.  The larger community (ie: not the anti- people, not the fans) isn't as convinced as you are regarding the inclusion of much of the individual articles, and I've managed to keep heavier hands from interfering so far, but I have no authority to prevent these AFDs, only my words and the trust of a few people and that can only take us so far.  If you don't like my ideas, offer better ones, but a solution must be the goal, not just discussion.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To reply to everything in order:


 * Since you didn't reply to what I meant, it's not clear how familiar you are with search engines. User input is generally weighted in the sort (esp near the top), and since UFC2012#149 is not intelligently hashed to the same location as UFC149, dividing a conserved number of user clicks necessarily lowers ranking. This is only offset by the consequence that an aggregate UFC2012 will eventually always be at the top, which is not only confusing to any MMA fan (eg. "F1 June 2010", wtf?). But this is cheating the system by virtue of aggregation, and would likely result in demotion of wiki mma results in general (probably automatically, sometimes manually). For example, to maximize "UFC" search results in the short term, we can simply create a massive UFC page, and google will likely weight their relationship with wiki vs removing the page altogether from their sort. BTW, if you search UFC 143 (vs 149), you can also see the inconsistent title issue already.
 * As someone ostensibly familiar with MMA, I really can't see how something so inherently confusing adds functionality. Putting more stuff on one page of course always has the benefit of more stuff on a page, but there's a reason why html was created and very good reasons why they were separate in the first place. Those good reasons are necessarily mutually exclusive to these new supposed good reasons, and if we're designing this for MMA as a sport, it's obvious which to choose.
 * I really do appreciate your efforts to stop AfD's (as would all MMA page users), but as stated previously, the problem here is that a very vocal minority of anti-fans can disrupt everyone else with only questionable cause. Now, it would be quite unfair to expect you to personally solve this problem, but it doesn't help retain or restore faith in the process by dismissing this fundamental issue out of hand. IOW, users are more likely to accept change if its presented honestly as the only way to fend off abusive bureaucrats than to cover that up and pretend it's something it's not.
 * We talk about transparency, but frankly only the agenda of the page users seem to be open here. For example, I believe there's a very strong argument to the powers that be that when a cohesive collection of useful pages already exists (ie contributed by many people, used by many people), it makes no sense to have to protect individual elements from what's basically loophole vandalism. I have trouble believing that this situation is unique to MMA, and thus precedent should exist for protecting a page group whose value as whole is greater than sum of parts.
 * More specifically, subjects like US constitution have a sidebar "This article is part of the series:United States Constitution", and I suspect random editors can't simply arbitrarily ask to delete any of the entries. And thus I've presented a "solution" of sorts: help find a way with whomever you're consulting with to set up a similar arrangement to defend the collection as whole instead of piecemeal as we've been doing. Put another way, either MMA and UFC in particular is a worthwhile wiki subject or it's not. If it is, it makes no sense at all that we have to significantly compromise the way this subject is best presented just so that each key component is safe. From yet another angle since this argument is key: people come to trust wiki because they've come to know that it provides an authoritative reference on a subject and not just a random set of entries. As it was, the linked chain of UFC events constitutes that set/trust for this subject and considering them individual on the part of wiki (for AfD's, etc) is equivalent to trivializing and thus breaking that trust. Unless someone can actually come up with a coherent response to this, we're back at doing it only because it's an acceptable spirit-of-the-rules run around of the initial letter-of-rules run-around. Ball's in your court. Agent00f (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I'm extensively familiar with search engines, dating back to well before the existence of Google. It is the primary function of my occupation to be intimately familiar with them.  As to whether a Cabal exists to remove all the articles, that isn't exactly a good faith assumption, although your tone throughout the discussion was already indicating this is how you felt, I was just waiting for you to explicitly state so.  I've been very clear that future events and articles that aren't sourced would be redirects.  MMA articles should be held to the same standard as any other article.  Some will be articles, some will not.  At least those future and less covered events will still have coverage, and the redirect is just as easy to locate as an article, as I clearly demonstrated below with a search of UFC 149 on Google. At this point, it would seem you want to only be contrary and pick apart every comment and flood the discussion with FUD, to have it die by a death by a thousand cuts, as your opinions are obviously tainted with the assumption of bad faith of others.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. If you're going to make accusations, please substantiate them in clear way so they can be replied to. Since you don't seem to be in habit of giving honest or straightforward replies, this likely wouldn't happen. For example, you seem to open the floor to comments, but when comments actually come, you cut them off or ignore any which are not convenient. There isn't a single reply to any relevant issue iterated above (other than the one attempt at argument from authority), so if you want to pass it off as something to do with me even though no one else is getting answers either, that's your personal prerogative but let's be clear it's not substantiated by evidence. I tried pretty hard to attribute all this to reasons other than contempt for the user-base, but you don't seem like a incompetent person and the only one that makes any sense is perhaps you were hoping that once the few remaining non-bureaucrats were driven off a "consensus" will remain. But you are correct about at least one thing: it's been rather impossible to read what transpired and not come away with the impression that a few anti-fans (not you, you simply don't care, note this is different from questions of faith) are abusing the process to achieve personal goals. I know wiki likes to pretend otherwise as a matter of policy, but policy like rules don't dictate reality. I've also provided clear evidence of this before, so please at least respect your integrity enough to not deny it. Finally, just because you can't be straight with others doesn't mean I'll follow in kind, so this is what it comes down to: unless you basically tell all the users that wiki has no other way of handling and protecting a comprehensive set of page as whole without arbitrarily bunching them together to get around loopholes in the rules, they're not going to accept that this is a good faith solution, only at best the convenient one. Agent00f (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A round of applause for Agent00f. The new format is incredibly disruptive and confusing. The editors seem to think that UFC events are not notable and nothing is going to change that. I can only see a power struggle taking place here. Portillo (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the ideas put forth in the fact that they are potentially useful pages in addition to the stand-alone articles. I also like the idea of them being the places where the stand-alones are born. That said, it seems like these omnibuses are keeping people busy, while those who have fervently set out (and please, let's not suspend logic to the extent that we don't acknowledge that at some point it became a CAMPAIGN) to remove the individual articles are just going to continue picking them off while the omnibuses are worked on. UFC 143 is gone as well now. Disappointing indeed. And if anyone finds my comment of a 'campaign' inappropriate, look around. MtKing has had virtually no input here, but continues to lobby to Admins for the closure of individual pages. You know it isn't right, I don't know why you're tolerating it. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, all of your collaboration so far has been to effectively say WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with WP:BURO. Year was chosen as the classification to figure out how to group the articles. Yes we acknowledge that you are opposed to any proposal that does not keep the status quo. I personally have decided to dismiss your objections as you provide no way forward other than to drop back to the status quo. Part of consensus building (which we're trying to do here) is to understand that there will have to be compromises. If you look at the BAMMA series of events you'll see that while I have been previously tarred and feathered as a deletionist of MMA articles, I actually suggested that it might be better to merge all the events together to make it less likely to be AfDed. I followed through once there was a reasonable amount of support to propose a Merge/Redirect. So in summary, please feel free to continue throwing a temper tantrum in the corner, I've decided to ignore your input until you come up to the minimum level of discourse that is expected of all editors by providing positive suggestions Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim that I've only been complaining is trivially and demonstrably false given that this is being posted in a section whose primary content is well-reasoned arguments as to why the new design is terrible (it's worth noting it also presents an argument as to why some don't take user considerations as real ones). Generally speaking, this is done in the preliminary states of evaluating a plan to determine its value, though in this case it's understandable why it's not considered useful given that the actual goal is to "do something" rather than decide what is best. Or in more familiar terms, the status quo is politically out of the question. More specifically, we could talk about why it makes sense for BAMMA and other tiny promotions whose relatively inconsequential events all fit on one page and other specifics of the subject at hand, but let's not delude ourselves that practical considerations have any place here. It's also notable that when I previously asked what we're "compromising" between, there were no answers forthcoming so it can only be assumed that this word being used to refer to some kind of process which isn't open to inquiry, and that's confusing because it coincides in spelling with the kind that is. BTW, I was under no illusion that an outsider uninterested in rule-based committees could divert this steamroller; it's personally sufficient to register the fact that almost no one using these pages is pleased with the process or the solution and that no one piloting it cares. Provided that this an accurate summary (and it is), I'm honestly not sure what people expect non-bureaucrats to do. Agent00f (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on your point that we have to decide what is best rather than just "do something". Since the current system is dysfunctional, part of deciding what is best is to consider what we can do to fix it, however.  This at the core of the current proposal, as it doesn't depend on throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is instead to the side of the current system, simply acting as a failsafe with added benefits. That is why it is a compromise.  Even if all articles are kept, this proposal doesn't diminish them and only enhances.  Even if all the articles were deleted, this system would be the failsafe.  These are both highly unlikely scenarios, but even at the extremes, this proposal serves the purpose of preserving data while adding functionality that is optional to the end user.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One extra note: Technically, since this isn't changing the current articles in any way, a consensus isn't even required.  There is no policy restriction holding me back, and the previous, multiple speedy keep decisions for 2012 UFC demonstrate that.  I could simply go and create these articles and they would stand up to scrutiny quite easily.  The reason I don't is simple: That isn't my style and wouldn't be fair to you guys.  I want everyone to grab a hammer and pitch in, and build this new system themselves, in a style and design of their choosing, and finally offer a failsafe solution that is both effective and sensitive to the needs of both the larger community and MMA fans both.    Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agent00f, while I understand your frustrations, as well as Hasteur's, I think you are missing the point. Nobody is trying to steamroll this through, when it became apparent that following the Wikipedia guidelines were not in the best interest of anyone involved, we all stepped back to look at the process and talk about things,and as has been stated, build a consensus. Wikipedia does have policy and it also has bends and breaks and exceptions to it, it is not the Brittanica, but the community that values Wikipedia as a whole over single sections, have developed consensus on what those policies and guidelines should be to keep us encyclopedic in the "Wikipedia" way.


 * Im only speaking of my opinion in this statement, but I think part of the problem is you see how wikipedia has had a section built as an MMA wiki might be as an extremely useful tool for fans of MMA. The problem with that is it doesn't follow the guidlines of what a wikipedia should be to maintain at least some value as an accurate sources of reference for educational,professional and research endeavors. Part of that means trimming single articles across all topics to a certain level,excluding things based on verifiability and notability,etc. No one disputes that the single page on UFC as an org far surpasses the requirements for notability, or that some UFC events deserve a single article. The problem is, almost none of them are written with any prose to explain their significance to meet notability, are created before the events happen, Have an increasingly high number of matches(like football or soccer or basketball), and often things need to be reorganized to ensure their long term viability in the encyclopedia.


 * Hit counts and arguments about how useful the status quo is to fans, aren't sufficient arguments to keep the status quo. If that kind of tool is that valuable, someone should start an MMAwiki and have advertising like the other MMA fan sites. Honestly I would encourage someone to do that regardless from the arguments about how useful the particular format is. I am sure and deleted content could be made available.


 * What I really wish is that someone as passionate as you could try and work withing the frameworks that consensus is built upon, and help the editors make better choices if you don't want to grab a hammer yourself. The solutions may not meet your ideal, but there won't be a solution to things like your chronology issue if you can't stop thinking about how much you hate this and start thinking about ways to fix it.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To be very clear I do not dispute that some individual pages as they exist now might not met strict standards, but the point that's been ignored is that this is simply due to an unfortunate way in which wiki limits the organization of content. Or perhaps more accurately, the problem is that the ideal formatting for ufc events just happens to open itself up to institutional vandalism. In a sense, all we're really arguing over at this point is how to re-organize (or more accurately, how to see in a new manner) the same data to avoid that problem or get around the static page/entry limitation depending on the perspective. This is not what is frustrating, because that's either a matter of coming up with a wiki-centric solution (ie. whatever their general guideline is for protecting a inherently connected set of pages) or failing that a very straightforward design process.


 * What is frustrating though is that Dennis understands what this mean given his supposed background, but refuses to acknowledge the reality of it because frankly it's insulting to the intelligence of the anti-editors. Otherwise this would be done in a logical way (ie consistent with how design is generally done, not built from citing arbitrary rules written for unrelated subjects) and people wouldn't be complaining about a charade of a process. Instead the decision making is deliberated obfuscated and actual design discussion outside of very narrow boundaries is discouraged. Perhaps this is being done for good reason to avoid pissing off a couple of folks on the other end of the "compromise", but that's beside the point. What's perhaps most infuriating is that's it's blatantly obvious at least some of the people some of time are not acting in good faith, but rather than avoiding bad faith by addressing the issue, even if it's uncomfortable, we just move on with hidden agendas and nobody really trusts anything even if they're forced to grin. If we're to approach this realistically, between choosing to insult the intelligence of one side or the other (either the anti-fans for being so trivially placated or the fan that this is a "design" process), it's probably more important to have the people who are still interested in the subject remain around. Agent00f (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on the following stand alone articles that are part of a yearly series; 2012 OEC Kaohsiung, 2012 Indy Grand Prix of Alabama, 2012 China Open.Ppt1973 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Perhaps I'll take a look at those to apply the inclusion rubric, but that's not pertinent to this discussion. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell, I'll bite. 'Delete all as lacking secondary sources to prove notability.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting back on topic, what makes this so different is that we are tying to do something different than other sports have done, while remaining within the guidelines and serving the reading public well. What we are trying to do hasn't been done in the way that we are doing it, which is why we are starting a bit from a blank slate.  MMA is different than other sports, which is why a custom solution is needed. And yes, some articles are going to get deleted regardless of what happens in this discussion.  The entire purpose of this discussion to make sure that the information isn't lost and in those case, is instead preserved.  It is better to have some information in a lesser preferred format that completely gone.  And it won't affect any article that can stand up to regular criteria.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #4
(EC) Agent00f, as I look over the bottom half of this talk page you have made repeated calls to the "anti-MMA" folks to respond. I think you are referring, in part, to me even though I started working with the MMA WikiProject four years ago and have done a lot to improve articles and fight vandalism primarily on MMA articles in my time as an established editor. I have not responded and am still very hesitant to respond now, because in the last two months I have had to endure personal attacks, harassment, outings, and off-wiki calls to find out who I am in real life. The "pro-MMA" folks (and yes, I intentionally made that over generalization to hopefully point out that doing so as you have done is incorrect) have turned this situation into a toxic, non-constructive battlefield where discussion hasn't been wanted but rather that the "evil 3" (as Hasteur jokingly called us) should simply leave. But you didn't ask for explanations why some of us are not participating you wanted explanations on our reasoning of what started this course of action.

For a number of years, I have commented that MMA event articles are subject to deletion for a number of reasons. "Articles about notable [sporting events] should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Currently, the vast majority of MMA event articles appear to contain only "routine news coverage of such things as [fight] announcements [and] sporting [results].". You may complain about bureaucracy, but it's here for a reason. These guidelines I, and others, cite are here to provide well written, informative articles for everyone, not just MMA knowledgeable people. With the exception of UFC 94 and UFC 140, if someone with little to no knowledge of MMA visits an event article, they will have no chance of understanding the significance of what is going on.

UFC 125 is an event I picked at random. If you read it, you see there were apparently a lot of changes to the fight card. However, there is nothing to suggest why this event was important. An uninformed reader can easily over look that there was even a championship match at the event. That this championship match was part of a series of bouts between two fighters that even today is questionable which of the two came out on top of after the series of fights and rematches they had.

Anyhow, so MMA event articles for non-UFC promotions are deleted all the time for this reason. UFC articles have been put up at AfD off and on over the years and this time, they started getting deleted a number at a time for the reasons I explained above. The omnibus article was proposed for two main reasons. One was to preserve information about deleted MMA events in a form that may be more palpable to deletionists. It also serves as a way of discussing the significant aspects of each event in a time period. By doing so it would try to establish the potential notability of individual events but it would certainly establish the notability of the events as a group and their inter-relatedness. No one, that I can recall, has said individual event articles cannot exist on the whole. Rather, individual event articles need to contain something other than fight results and a few sentences discussing all the changes to the fight card; an individual event article need to be able to assert why it is notable on its own. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I suppose it's not meaningful for me to apologize on the behalf of anyone else, but I do feel bad you were personally victimized regardless of the quality of your argument. I can however apologize for being repetitive and state again that I never disagreed with the letter-of-the-rules arguments on some of the articles. My point has always been that looking at this as only unrelated articles instead of parts of a cohesive set is an myopic view of wikipedia in general, and this point is evidenced by the fact that once they're slapped together even in nonsensical manner it's magically wiki-worthy with no additional work necessary. IOW, it's simply a matter of organization, and thus it makes no sense that the bureaucracy prefers (or dare I say allows) one design over another for reasons unrelated to design. "Because the rules say so" is a terrible reason to pick an inferior format over the logical one even if the rule were design-specific. If the power that be simply acknowledge the executive decision is that this bullshit decision is mandatory as a necessary feature of wiki house law as it pertains to MMA-like subjects, I think people would take it a lot better than lying to them about the point of the process (ie since it's more reconciliation to a done deal than problem-solving).


 * On "anti-fans", please understand that capitulating to this kind of political nonsense is functionally equivalent to hating on the MMA userbase of wiki who find the data quite useful. Enabling isn't philosophically as bad as doing it, but that's a distinction without a real world difference. Agent00f (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * After reading through pages of painstaking discussion, I'm still vague on why we should use an omnibus system. So far, the only arguments in favor of such a system are: 1: It follows Wikipedia policy -> ie "It's the rules"; and 2: Prevents info from being deleted when individual pages get flagged for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policy -> ie "It's the rules"


 * So is there any argument for deleting individual pages and using the omnibus system that does not involve pointing me to the various Wikipedia policy pages? Unless I'm missing something, I haven't seen anyone make the argument that the omnibus system is -better-, and plenty of people listing reasons why it's worse. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is better for the simple reason that it means WP covers all UFC events rather then just the ones that have enduring notability (as defined not by MMA fans but by WP policies). Mt  king (edits) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reply is exactly what I was pointing out: The omnibus idea came about because of "WP policies" and its subsequent application to MMA pages. Is there any reason to prefer the omnibus system -besides- WP policies? Or let me put it in another way: What would the merits/benefits of the omnibus system be if people (you?) -hadn't- started flagging UFC pages for deletion? 75.101.47.18 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What as opposed to not covering them at all ? WP has policies and procedures that are there to guide what as an encyclopaedia it covers, WP does not purport to cover everyone or everything. For example I could write a bio page on myself, I could provide sources to confirm education, employment and recreational items listed, it would be interesting to some (not many I grant you) but it would be deleted probably within 2 hours of posting it and defiantly within 7 days as I do not meet the bar that WP has set for including bio's; I could argue what harm does it do, it is all true and all verifiable, but it would still get deleted. The same goes for these MMA events, the WP bar for events (is detailed both in WP:NOT and WP:EVENT) is what it is, if MMA fans do not like that, arguing here about that bar can not change the bar, all we can do here is work out how to apply that bar to allow WP to cover MMA events. The argument that we keep them as they are is going to lead to the situation over time where the information on MMA gets wittled down to only those select events that demonstrate enduring notability and nothing else, the omnibus system is better as it allows for all events to be covered in the one article, with those events that do demonstrate enduring notability covered in there own article. Searching for "UFC 165", either on Google or WP will get you to the part of WP that covers that event. Mt  king (edits) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument makes the giant logical leap that Wiki entries are simply isolated articles to be considered individually when one of the most compelling reasons why people use it is that it's become a fairly comprehensive collection of intrinsically related material that users can reasonably expect to contain in aggregate what they're going to be curious about. For example, it would make the linked chain of UFC events much less useful if arbitrary ones are missing. The bureaucrats here of course also acknowledge this given that they will readily accept the exact same info only organized in a worse way, rather than forcing the deletion of previously inadequate sub-entries, even though there's no functional difference except all the baggage that comes along with terrible design.
 * That is also why I said that the users will not approve of this decision unless all other methods of protecting the set of pages as whole have been exhausted. What's being forced on us is a ridiculous solution, but people will accept ridiculous solutions if it's the least worst alternative. This is exactly why I asked Dennis (or anyone with decision making power) to certify that wiki technically cannot produce a better way of organizing page sets or dealing with them in general, because being honest enough to admit this (if it's true) would at least reconcile it to the "shitty executive decisions that you have to live with" bin. I also offered suggestions but my knowledge base of wiki features/history is not sufficient to ensure that they are coherent (and as an honest person I fully admit this instead of asserting incoherent solutions on topics I know nothing about), however you can read Denni's reply where he acts as the voice of the bureaucrat team instead of a neutral party who at least tries to look out for user interests, so that's a dead end. Put another way, the users are essentially being told it's not a rigged design process as long as they agree with the terrible design being handed down. At some point one has to decide that participating in a sham only lends it credibility, and it took me longer than many to grasp this. Agent00f (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, Trey, King, et al. I withdrew my AfD's for the UFC pages that failed not only WP:GNG/MMAevent, but WP:FUTURE to help facilitate a compromise, and work towards making this encyclopedia better. When do we move past users with the attitude of WP:IDONTLIKEPOLICY and WP:NONEOFTHERULESAPPLYTOTHISBECAUSEILIKEITTHIsWAY and forward with ones like UDAR who are willing to help make this work.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already been long decided that user input doesn't matter, so why pretend anything needs to be done now? You claim to "disagree" with what I've said, but given there are zero rebuttals of many many factual claims, it can only be deduced that daring to speaking out was instead "disagreeable" rather than a response related to actual content. BTW, the users here would assume good faith more often if they didn't get burned so much for it; we can start assuming good faith again when people actually show some. Agent00f (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But you are under the mistaken belief that this project can choose to unilaterally change established WP inclusion criteria in a self serving way, it can't. So you have a choice, you can either work within the existing inclusion criteria, or dig your heals in insist on an article per event and accept that WP's MMA coverage will have gaps in as article after article gets deleted. Mt  king (edits) 04:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The law doesn't need to be changed; just like law in the real world, precedence to interpret it in an intelligent instead of rigid/literal way can be set. As much as it's the bane of bureaucracy, a spirit of the rules does exist. The opposing opinion here is that a dictated dogmatic interpretation will always be granted priority as matter of course, and even then I very clearly stated that users would go along with terrible decisions as long it's clearly demonstrated there are no better alternatives to bureaucratic stupidity. That's what compromise is, and this is what acting in good faith means: being minimally forthright instead of insulting our intelligence by pretending a worse format created to run around the literal interpretation is some kind of design process. Agent00f (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason "article after article" gets deleted is because you have lobbied for their deletion repeatedly. I don't mean to be rude, but what you say feels like "do what I say or watch me delete your articles". 76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not me saying it, have you read the closing comments at the AfD's, the page after page of comments at ANI, the 300k+ worth of comments here, it is admins and other established editors saying it, loud and clear take for example User:Black Kite when they said ; I could give other examples, but what's the point as you can't or won't change your position on this will you ? Mt  king (edits) 04:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but: A. Weren't you the one who flagged (many of) the articles for deletion in the first place? You could just have left them alone (or improved them!), policy or not. And B: There is no consensus among the admins either considering they didn't follow your lead in your attempt to delete UFC142.76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No 76.103.153.126, that's just "good faith" in action: blame administrative decisions for your own free actions. Agent00f (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's most frustrating to me aside from the fact that Agent00f should be blocked for his disruptive comments, passive aggressive attacks, and assuming bad faith. There was real progress being made here, until he decided to try and bog everything down with WP:IDONTLIKEPOLICY rants.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that this member also laid out similar baseless accusations on my talk page. I would respond to each accusation again but he clearly shows bad faith at every turn given he never replied with anything of substance or specific even when explicitly prompted; no assumption is necessary here. Also worth pointing that it's equally bad faith if not terrible logic to blame a general lack of interest from other users who've been burned on me. I do not control their actions, nor do I have any power over the process as abundantly demonstrated. Perhaps the problem here is that this member doesn't know how "assumptions" work or the idea of "good faith". That last statement is not passive aggressive btw, he literal does not seem to understand those words which might be what's leading him/her to make these claims; this is a good faith assumption. Agent00f (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #5
I think it is time to move this on to a proposal which can be put to a RfC, we have clearly two editors in the SPA of Agent00f and the IP 76.103.153.126 who are here to defend the single article format and are not willing to consider the alternatives and all they are doing at this time is filibustering any progress towards a clear proposal. It is therefore time to accept they will never be convinced of the merit in the omnibus format but that should not stop progress on this matter and of course they are free to oppose any RfC that comes out of this discussion. Mt king (edits) 05:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We can only hope that blatant lying is as covered by wiki code as the not assuming good faith that's always being trotted out. I've laid out very clearly, include in direct reply to Mtking, that this is a terrible but marginally passable solution as long as it's declare by someone with authority (ie not Mtking) that there are no other methods in wikidom to resolve the issue of institutional vandalism against cohesive article sets. There was no attempt at all to act on these legitimate concerns or even reply to them; at all. By pretending these events never occurred it provably demonstrates extremely bad faith. Please recall all these comments mentioned are recorded above for factual posterity and are not subject to deletion. If the process can dismiss good clear arguments out of hand, it seems in bad faith to call it "consensus" given that only one party is necessary anyway. However, in the spirit of compromise we should continue the charade so long as the participants start accurately calling it "ruling by dictat" instead of "consensus". Agent00f (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * to quote "but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion." it continues "The key to dealing with a filibusterer is to point out that they're filibustering and to ignore them.", so consider it pointed out...... Mt  king (edits) 07:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that focusing on the facts of the case are an intellectual game to Mtking, because it's not to those of us who are serious about this matter and take an interest in this subject beyond playing petty authoritarian. Note that Mtking has attempted to cleverly weasel out of replying seriously to a serious comment while playing the victim. This exemplifies seriously bad faith, and unfortunately this behavior has has been the norm. For example, 76.103.153.126 above also points out the lie when Mtking pretended to care about retaining article info when he's been strongly pushing to delete them regardless of whether another solution exists. No response to this serious allegation of blatant dishonesty as expected, yet such an untrustworthy editor remains one of the key players and proponents in this process.


 * It's not controversial to claim that "assume good faith" is not equivalent to "axiomatically assume good faith", iow assume it until evidence exists to make a good determination either way. Given the abundant display of atrociously terrible faith that's been acted out in this thread, it's no wonder that only the worst actors are still left to push it onward after most all the initially numerous page users have left in disgust. Agent00f (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Before we continue, I would like to restate what I wrote above, since I never did get a proper reply to it. The reason I am asking for this is that Dennis Brown implied he would get around to giving me "a proper reply" so but the conversation surged far forward and away and that didn't happen. To restate, when Dennis Brown fairly asked what a proper solution might be, I replied: "Honestly, I think very few of the users or editors who generally created, maintained or read the MMA articles had any egregious problems with them in the first place (and without anyone being "sanctioned" that I can recall as long as they followed the established format). That's the problem. The MMA wiki project and format has been well-established for several years. There are a few things that few contributors to those articles would terribly object to (the removal of entrance-music lists, for example), but those things are completely trivial compared to what has been proposed. This is why people need to know why these are actual "problems" not protected under Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar: "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." These were/are informational articles with a uniform format, a solid and well-established community that would maintain them and protect them from vandalism, and would resolve internal formatting disputes on their own, and were pages with considerable popularity, and the articles existed in such a way that they helped those interested in the sport have a deeper understanding of it and its history, and those who were looking for specific historical information in MMA find their answer, while being generally and inherently satisfying to their userbase. The result is that absolutely no one is happy with the current situation. There are compromises people have put on the table that I could personally live with, but it is absolutely fair to ask what purpose the current action against the MMA Wikipedia Project serves beyond satisfying bureaucracy in and of itself, when Wikipedia is explicitly not a bureaucracy ." Beansy (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if your question got lost in the flood. There are a couple of problems that I'm trying to address.  One of them is that several of the articles don't pass criteria and if they go to AFD, they will and have been deleted.  Agree or not, it is the reality we have.  It is better to keep the info somewhere than to simply lose it.  Another problem is future events.  When someone creates an article on future events, it is almost always deleted.  I can quote you all the reasons, but i doesn't matter, 99% of the time future events don't pass criteria, so ends up happening is a big drama fest AFD.  Until recently, no one paid much attention to the MMA articles, so all the articles went rather unnoticed, but many were short of criteria all along.  Once everything exploded in the drama fest that was a series of AFDs, the larger community took notice and started saying "well, some of these don't pass criteria".  The simple fact is, the genie is out of the bottle.  There is no "going back to how it was", there are too many eyes on it.  Hell, at my Request for Admin, there was a larger than average turn out and it was one of the topics often covered was my involvement here.  Trust me, there are many, many eyes on this, they just aren't talking, and glad to have me try to sort this mess out instead.  I've already had to make several gestures to get people to delay AFDs, including at ANI, but patience is wearing out.  All articles on Wikipedia have to conform to a set of established guidelines and policies.  This is not different than UFC itself.  There are "rules", of sorts.  Wikipedia may not be a bureaucracy, but it isn't anarchy either.  There is some bureaucracy here, there has to be.  Established procedures for dealing with disputes like WP:ANI and WP:DRN are purely bureaucracy, so lets not kid ourselves.  I'm trying to not get bogged down with it, but rather apply the good parts of bureaucracy (ie: the guidelines that insure we all play by the same rulebook), and apply some common sense and flexibility (create something new that hasn't been done, that will protect info and preserve the current naming conventions).  Like it or not, change is coming, and it isn't by my choosing.  If at some point I decide that I can no longer help here and back away, the alternative isn't going to be as patient.  If the wider community feels like this project is not going to happen and I'm wasting time, then I will have lost the ability to persuade them to hold off on sending stuff to AFD.  Remember, I have NO authority except the power of my words here, backed up by progress they see here.  Being an admin gives me no authority to force someone to withdraw an AFD.  Then you might actually see something that looks like bureaucracy, as there are plenty of people in the wider community that think I am wasting my time and we should just let it all go to AFD and hash it out there.  And more drama would happen.  If the MMA community takes an "all or nothing" approach, that is a big risk that I don't see coming out very well.  I don't think you are, you seem entirely reasonable.  But in a nutshell, there are many eyes on this, so the problems can't be ignored.  Either the problems can be solved here, or by the outside.  I prefer that we try to let the MMA community try to solve the problems, as that is more likely to produce a result they like, but in the end, We are here to build an encyclopedia, which means consistency, and MMA events are but one part of it.  I'm trying to offer solutions and acknowledge and comply with the concerns of the MMA community, but at some point, the MMA community has to say "Ok, we don't like some of the guidelines, but I admit I can see where some of these articles come up short.  Lets find a way to bridge the gap".  Fortunately, many already have and are trying to help here.  My guess is that you will, too, even if you have some legitimate questions and concerns along the way.  Nothing wrong with that at all.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter can we at get a clue as to what the boundaries of omnibus design are? Far as I can tell we're just cramming stuff into pages until someone's imaginary threshold is met. For example, kelapstick's proposal of 10 events per page makes more sense than an annual division if only because it's not as ridiculously crowded, but it's all a rather precarious setup when splintering off more substantive events risks AfD on the rest. If we're actually serious about "try to let the MMA community try to solve the problems", I think most users would prefer that people who came into this with the desire to delete the subject should limit their input to avoid conflict of interest. Related to this, is there an inherent wiki benefit for protection of sections within pages, or are we just assuming good faith that at least the detractors won't strike again? BTW, I've taken the time to read the admin resolution board for MMA matters and you are undisputed correct that the local opposition to the subject don't even rank among the extremists. Agent00f (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In a curious but not altogether unexpected turn of events, the user Hasteur, who AFAICT is not an admin, has also taken to threatening me on my talk page. This seems to the preferred option by one side of the disagreement here for settling disputes instead of discussing issues in the open. "lack of good faith assumptions" indeed. Agent00f (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC):


 * Final Warning regarding disruptive editing and lack of good faith assumptions
 * This is your final warning. Stop Filibustering, posting long diatribes regarding the unfairness, bureaucracy of wikipedia, entire arguments that the status quo for MMA articles "doesn't hurt anything", and deliberately attempting to derail the consensus process.  The next posting you make on WT:MMANOT that strays into any of these realms, I will open a filing on the Administrator's Noticeboard asking for an outside Administrator to evaluate your posts in the context of "building a collaborative encyclopedia" to determine if sanctions (up to and including Topic banning you from all MMA related articles,blocking you from editing any wikipedia article,or banning you from the site entirely). This is not a threat, I am simply illuminating what the next step will be in the process. You've been warned my me, by other editors, and by an admin who is somewhat involved in the discussion.  Please consider modifying your behavior as it is currently unacceptable. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, is it the policy of wiki for editors to continuously make arbitrary accusations without evidence? I've asked for substantiation of any of these charges, but none has been forthcoming, so I'm puzzled as to why you believe them to be true. It's also notable that list of "banned by Hasteur" topics is currently what's under discussion at the MMA omnibus page, so the request is to essentially voluntarily ban myself from the conversation, or else. Look, I don't doubt that you have more pull with perhaps some other insiders that you've come to know in the past, but please consider how this kind of behavior reflects on your peers when one party to a "consensus" takes to threats to prevent the other side from participating. Agent00f (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me clear up one point for you Agent. Admins don't have any more authority than non-admins in this area.  As an admin, the only difference between me and you is that I have a set of tools that allow me to take action when needed and the wider community has decided that I can be trusted with them, but my voice is no more important than anyone else's, and Hasteur's voice is no less important that any admins.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely it's evident from the tone displayed by Hasteur, Mtking, etc that some editors feel more equal than others. Agent00f (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some editors are more constructive than others, perhaps. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It aids constructiveness when questions and very well reasoned and sourced arguments aren't just ignored out of convenience if not routinely threatened. Agent00f (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have striked a out of context reposting of my appropriate and justified warning on Agent00f's talk page. We (those editors who are collaborating) have tried on multiple occasions to explain why Agent00f's actions are not appropriate. Part of being in a community is you have to follow the community's guidelines in terms of basic structure, posting, civility, etc.  We have warned Agent00f multiple times about assuming good faith, yet all we are presented with is continues assumptions of bad faith and cries of "rules for rules sake".  I did not threaten  you with banning (I do not have the toolset), I simply informed you what the next step in the process would be if you didn't come into conformity with the behavioral guidelines really quickly. The fact that you've responded negatively and are striking out at a user whom the community has chosen to entrust with additional functionality (Dennis Brown) suggests you're not here to do anything but cause disruption.  Your next posting here should be an apology to all the editors whose time you've wasted or you and I will take a trip to a forum of larger consensus (Administrator's Noticeboard) to see if sanctions are appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's more ironic, threatening others with "assumptions of bad faith" if they don't leave all the while claiming it's not a threat, racketing up the demands and drama they supposedly seek to avoid when the threats are laid bare for the world to see, or that this is mainly a response to a call for more honest discussion. BTW, can I get a link to these "multiple explanations" referenced above that I must've missed so I can prepare an appropriate defense? I asked for it before but you must've missed the request. Agent00f (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * There are your repeated warnings. I could probably find more by parsing the intermediate text, but these are the primary ones prior to the final warning I delivered Hasteur (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I was looking for explanations rather than hollow accusations. Anyone can throw arbitrary lists together like "not assuming 2+2=5", but it's another thing to make them evident. Agent00f (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO LEAVE You offer no constructive ideas, no support for compromise or consensus, you simply make statements about how logical this is, and illogical that is, all well written yet completely framed outside the idea of an encyclopedia, much less wikipedia policies.

Any reasonable person, who is neutral can come and read your contribs and see that this discussion was moving towards compromise and at least working towards a common goal,until you decided to disrupt the process over and over again. Your are guments are full of things that cannot coexist with WP:WhatWikipediaIsNot, WP:GNG, WP:AAGF, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Look anyone in an adversarial position is going to on occasion make statements that aren't inline with assuming good faith. But every comment for the past 5 +/-20 have had blatant assumptions of bad faith.

Again, NO ONE IS SAYING YOU SHOULD LEAVE although at this point, it certainly is BE CONSTRUCTIVE,OFFER IDEAS OTHER THAN THE STATUS QUO OR MOVE ONNewmanoconnor (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO LEAVE". Really? Did you bother to read Hasteur's latest threat right above or do need a neutral party? I've also already explained in detail why assumptions are no long necessary when empirical evidence is readily available, so it really helps to read what others are saying, otherwise you're not going to be on the same page. Anyway, I'm sorry that the many substantive arguments offered above don't meet your definition for "encyclopedic" since they certainly make sense in the context of wiki as evidence by the omnibus page itself (same stuff, different format). It's generally difficult to make good decision without requisite knowledge of what is being decided, and willfully ignoring broader context isn't help here. Also consider that Wiki is the way it is today because of way that it met user needs, not because the latter were somehow crammed into a dictated box a la Britannica. It's furthermore very difficult to be constructive when power is mostly wielded by a small clique who concoct the plan outside public view and then present it as an inviolable framework. Agent00f (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Or put another way, if you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Everyone has been welcomed with open arms to be part of the solution, including Agent.  Simply taking a contrary position to every offered solution without ever offering your own solution, is not constructive, it is obstructive, and stretches the limits of good faith.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can all see it was us (the AfD clique) vs them (unwashed MMA masses) from the start, but if we're talking about good faith, it's hard to maintain a straight face when the inviolable plan is mostly the former's. It's also curious you say "been welcomed with open arms to be part of the solution" when you've ignored the ominibus-relevant comments in reply to your longer post right above. (btw they were posted many hours ago but unfortunately lef unsigned, check the record to verify if need be) Agent00f (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OPPOSE OMNIBUS CONDITIONALLY SUPPORT NOW, SEE BELOW I wasn't around for the the AfD's on UFC 140 and 143. The admins who closed them, with deletions, made comments that made sense, although in one case in the unusual move of deleting despite closing as "no consensus." In the UFC 146 AfD, I have shown (I just wrote it) secondary sources of prose discussing events surrounding UFC 146, that is not just stats, dates, names, etc. WP:SPORTSEVENT only covers those things as it is written. As it is written, it does not say anything like, "If the secondary prose is just the kinds of storylines you can find as a lead-up to any sports event, then that's still routine, and doesn't past muster." although those in favor of the deletions and an omnibus article here are interpreting it that way. And they have a point, because such previews are commonplace, and it does seem to be covered more specifically in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The problem with an interpretation that goes beyond the strict lettering of WP:SPORTSEVENT and includes normal secondary media coverage of storylines leading up to and following the event is it's not consistent with how other sporting events are covered in Wikipedia. Did anything truly memorable, a permanent place in history occur at the1969 Sandlapper 200 or the 1989 Hopman Cup or even the 1977 NBA Finals? No...but they do have the secondary prose coverage (apparently...I haven't checked). Many, many, many, MANY sporting events in many sports are just considered notable on its face in Wikipedia, whether or not anything really unusual or memorable happened in them, and the notability of UFC events (leaving aside other MMA promations for the moment) cannot be said to be less than a great many of those events. And before anyone trots out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, let me do that myself as I did in the UFC 146 AfD: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." One of the themes of that essay is "other stuff exists" makes a lousy standalone argument, but in conjunction with other legitimate arguments may be valid and important for the sake of consistency. That's what I am trying to establish here. Secondary prose from major media non-MMA sources exists for every single UFC event, that standard is good enough for the vast majority of sporting events on Wikipedia even if the secondary prose is not of memorable consequence, and so my position is that every UFC event should have a standalone article. If existing UFC events are lacking said secondary-sourced prose, it should be added and the article improved, not deleted. I am sorry my side of this coin is beset by meat puppets and questionable civility, but hopefully that won't unduly influence anyone focusing on the crux of the debate. Mreleganza (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The omnibus system doesn't require that other full articles be removed. It is ancillary to them, additional.  That point keeps getting lost for some unknown reason.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mreleganza i will be more than happy to help with the inline citations and even writing the prose into the articles, but you're going to have to provide them from these sources, I can't find any myself. I do wonder if EVERY UFC event is notable, that sounds a bit concerning, but I truly wish someone would help write even one into a prosaic page that demonstrates lasting significance and continuous coverage. Though it's also worth pointing out this is not a vote on whether an Omnibus is a good system.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable. Other articles in other sports are not of debate.  This is about MMA articles and how we can reconcile their current existence with the policies and guidelines of en.Wikipedia.  IF the article is sufficiently notable and sourced (as judged by a neutral good faith editor) then the article remains just that, an Article.  If a neutral good faith editor comes in and does not see the notability and sources necessary, they are within their rights to nominate for one of multiple processes (including merging/redirecting and deletion). The Omnibus system allows us to merge and redirect the content to a new article that has more viability at surviving various WP processes and does allow for the article to be spun back out if/when there is enough appropriate content. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that all the talk about what *might* happen to an article is distracting. The fact is, the omnibus system is separate.  If every single article on MMA is kept as is, it will not affect the omnibus articles.  It won't change the content, the usefulness or the policy behind implementing them.  I think it would be helpful if we moved forward from that presumption.  Decisions as to what individual articles do or do not belong are NOT the function of this MMA notability page, and are outside the scope, and at this point, a distraction.  PRODs and AFDs are also unhelpful right now as they are fueling the fires and making the work harder for some of us.  No reason to address further comments whether the omni is good or bad.  After it is built, if someone wants to nominate it for deletion at AFD in good faith, they can at that time, I am not concerned as to the outcome.  For now, we just need to focus on what everyone thinks is the best way to design it.  If people want to say how bad it is and don't want to help build it, fine, you can use my one line quote above and simply move on.  We need less verbosity about this unrelated issue.    Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Dennis Brown. Considering the omnibus concept in a vacuum, and with the assumption that it will have no impact on the viability or lack thereof of invidual event articles, I support it. I do note that it appears many or most of the other supporters do support it as a direct alternative to individual event articles, which I do not endorse per the above.   Hasteur, I agree WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, I cited it myself after all. Obviously we don't agree on which way.  I repeat, WP:OTHERSTUFF maintains that consistency in Wikipedia is important if it is in conjunction with other factors and that's why, along with those other factors, I find the way other sports are treated are relevant if we are talking about an Omnibus as a replacement for single-event articles as you seem to be doing, although again I tip my cap to Dennis Brown's wish not to have that discussion here and now. Newmanoconnor, I provided those links as they pertain to UFC 146 per your request in the UFC 146 AfD.  I note, however, that similar links are already in the UFC 146 article, and I assume you have seen that, and therefore you consider the links in the article (and then most likely the similar links I suggested) also inadequate, and my arguments above have been based on that.  But let me not assume anymore, please tell me if the links provided or the links already in the article are adequate in your opinion, and if not, why not.  Mreleganza (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair compromise. Dennis, can we get UFC143 and others that have been deleted restored to their original states for the time being while work on the omnibus page (or other solution) is taking place? 75.101.47.18 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You would need to ask the admin that closed the previous AFD, which is the standard way. I can't do it, and because of my involvement in this building process. It is required that any admin that closes or takes action is "uninvolved", and safe to say, I'm involved here.  I can !vote at MMA AFDs if wanted, but I'm pretty sure that I can't ever close them or undelete them.  Even if I wasn't involved, I would have to ask the closing admin as not to make it look like I was wheel warring, which can get ME blocked.  There are a lot of rules for admins, many, many more than for non-admins.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mreleganza and 75 IP: Can we get the guideline/essay out first? That way when we restore the articles with the rationale of pointing at the guideline/essay. We don't want to leave the previously AfDed articles out there where they could be re-nominated for deletion too long. In my mind I'd like to have each one restored for long enough to apply the merge, and then place the redirect. Hasteur (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am oppossed to restoring any deleted UFC events unless someone can provide a draft that dempnstrates notability.We need to see some assistance building the Omnibus and getting notability guidelines hammered out before I would want to see that. Even in that case, I think someone should be provided with the content and build a draft IF it can be shown to be notable.

As far as UFC 146,it still needs more sourcing, and to be written better, there are three sources ESPN,SI,and another in the google search i posted to the AfD. Yes there are TWO other good sources, but the material that cites them is simplistic and routine. I'm not going to save the article alone. 1. I'm not a good story teller and 2. If I can work in a team so can those who were initially opposed to any of this.

I think this needs to be an opportunity to better the MMA section on wikipedia, for me to be wiling to help bend WP:POLICIES around MMA, the other editors/fans are going to have to help.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mreleganza, before offering support based on abstract considerations only, also consider looking at the condition of the 2012 article as it stands in practice. It's horribly unwieldy and it's barely May. If we're going forward with it, the userbase should at least consider alternative organizations that aren't so atrocious. In general, given it's supposed to be a "compromise", it would be best if user actually push back as standard part of negotiation instead of accepting wholesale. That's why I asked where this still imaginary threshold for minimal size is, but that still hasn't been answered. Agent00f (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The threshold for minimal size is arbitrary (as arbitrary as my 10 events per page is), it was created as 2012, with all the articles related to events in 2012 in the same article because it seemed like a good idea at the time. It not be the best way to group them, but that is the purpose of this discussion, to come to an agreement as to the best way to format it.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it clearly isn't arbitrary, and it's clearly no up to you or I but rather the AfD team. If one event is not notable, then two clearly isn't logically speaking. All we know so far is that a arbitrary year's worth (even if it only has 1 event) is, though. The fundamental purpose of this discussion is what's considered long enough that they won't go AfD crazy again. The MMA userbase will then be smart enough to organize around that hopeful brightline rule. And since this is ostensibly still a "compromise", and not being crammed down our throat (as far as it's public claimed), I suggest actually negotiating instead of taking whatever comes. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, can we (and by we I mean actual users) get a general idea of why wiki should continue to be used in the future for MMA given that the few guys running the show here seems have no interest in the subject otherwise? What I mean is that all the framework was created with no input from us, and in fact already put into place with no input from us, and all the decisionmaking is mostly done by a largely disinterested party, so when the disinterested parties eventually leaves, what power over how to run the omnibus cluster that remains be retained by MMA contributors? For example, who will vet splittering new entries? This is rather serious given that users have been provide no reason at all to continue investing in this except the basic motivation to see it not disappear. added: ok, I see one person who'll work on it. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am on board with Hasteur's questions if I understandcorrectly - that is, I vouch for my support that we continue to work on the MMA guidelines, and that we proceed with Dennis Brown's plan to start *new* articles in the 2012 in MMA space, and move from there and continue hashing out guidelines - then yes, I for one agree to that. ADDENDUM: While I am in agreement with the suggestions laid out by Dennis Brown thus far, there is still much work to do. For one, I don't think we have built consensus yet on the guidelines for creating standalone articles. I completely agree that each standalone article would need one mainstream secondary (non-MMA site) source of prose previewing and reviewing the event (I'd actually say two is more reasonable, but I'd also say that is easily achievable). The beauty of the 2012 MMA article - and sorry, Dennis Brown, for not really grokking this before - is that it does not at all impede the creation of standalone event articles, which if we can achieve consensus on the proper guidelines for establishing those will keep the MMA hardcore fans happy. Indeed, although I am loathe to nominally be on the same "side" as those who are canvassing, making sockpuppet allegations, and generally not being very civil - I wholeheartedly agree that the way MMA pages worked(well, UFC pages at least) before this spate of AfD's came along was not problematic. Clearly it was problematic to those who nominated the AfD's, who saw a problem with the fact that standalone UFC articles had been created for years and stated creating scads of AfD's. That I think it the crux of the problem we have to tackle next, and I seem to be far apart from MtKing and others on whether prose from multiple mainstream sources previewing and reviewing events and their specific storylines is sufficient to justify creation of standalone UFC event page (as well as other MMA events). I believe it is. If I understand MtKing correctly, that would still not necessarily be sufficient, because such secondary mainstream prose would not necessarily evidence an "enduring" legacy. This needs to be sorted out. I would propose that, in the interim, no AfD's are created (or redirected, yet) by the people involved in this conversation for existing standalone MMA events, be the event upcoming or in the past. My reasoning is that I think the focus should be on trying to save/improve the articles to adhere to the standalone MMA events guidelines we agree on, and AfD'ing them after if they cannot be brought up to our guidelines, rather than deleting them all and then going back to recreate them. Not only do I feel would this way forward would catalyze the improvement of articles already created, but it'd have the added benefit of not enraging tens of thousands of MMA fans who use the articles and then, once they are gon,e come in here and disrupt our attempts at building consensus. Towards that end, I'd also propose that the AfD MtKing created for UFC 146 be withdrawn, although I do not expect he will agree and I'm not going to go to war with him on that in this space.Mreleganza (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have previously asked someone to remove 9 AFDs and they quickly complied (thank you!).  I've made a request at the bottom of this page as well.  I haven't looked at the actual articles in question, so it was based solely on my desire to ratchet down the controversy and fix the problems, but we have to in a certain order.  We have to get the omni working first.  Next, we go to RfC with the criteria issue (we can't go there until there is a omni in place, since it concerns it).  Technically, we don't need a consensus to build the omni, but I know that if we do and everyone is on board, it will be easier to get everyone together and agree on criteria considerations.  Besides, the omni works independently even if all articles are kept, and would just be the building block and failsafe for new or lesser known events.  I can NOT make anyone withdraw an AFD.  The only tool I have in this is the strength of my arguments, reinforced by those of you here in the community.  I'm not an MMA person, I came as an outsider solely to help move it along, as an objective party, and someone with a great deal of experience at Wikipedia, particularly in dispute resolution.  I wasn't even an admin when I started this. Oh, and welcome :)  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I barely know MTKing and I think he would withdraw the AfD, IF it was fleshed out just a little more with the references from SI and ESPN that remain unsourced and could substantially add to the prose needed. Unfortunately he cannot as there are other comments that endorse the nom, each would have to be withdrawn. However, a merge of the info as is to the OMNIBUS may be better as it fits with the plan going forward, UFC 146 could be moved to a stand alone article when it actually happens, and We may be able to find an admin willing to do that.

I'd prefer that you revise the article further, and then have Dennis close the AfD as no consensus. We ALL agree to leave it up as a gesture of good faith, though it violates WP:FUTURE, and move on. I don't know if Dennis Can or is Willing to do that.Newmanoconnor (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't close AFDs on MMA events because I'm too heavily involved in this discussion. Only uninvolved admins can.  Same reason I can't take admin action at the ANI.  Admins can only use admin tools in places that they are far removed from.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Newmanoconnor I agree that it could be improved, and I will take a stab at it. I also don't think it's really that terrible as is, but as we both have said, that's why we need to keep talking about this.  I am tentatively okay with already-deleted articles not being restored, and by the same token (to reiterate) I would like to see no new AfD's go up until we have indeed hammered out these guidelines.   Agent00f I am not sure if this answers your questions or not, but as I understand it, truly endorse the model suggested by Dennis Brown for the 2012 in UFC Model (as opposed to a "wholesale" unthinking agreement based on "abstract" principles), and as such, I think its unwieldy state should be worked on and fixed rather than thrown out, just as I think the standalone UFC events that already exist should be improved rather than thrown out.  Mreleganza (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All I asked for for days is some written statement that no better solution to protect page collection was available, but you know how the other side is. Frankly I have no idea why we're being consulted at this point in time considering the atrocious and nonsensical page format is already a done deal in practice. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Appointing a "sheriff" to shut down the Wild West mentality on this page
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow As it's been demonstrated that this page has ballooned over 150k in Wikitext in 5 days, I propose that a neutral uninvolved admin be solicited for the purpose of actively monitoring this talk page, warning participants regarding minor violations of the community conduct, issuing blocks/sanctions for repeated violations (or major violations), and guiding us to a future in which MMA articles can be in WP with a reasonable certainty of surviving deletion. Said administrator will apply the community conduct standards as evenly and as fairly as possible. Thoughts?
 * Dennis suggests we won't be able to find one. Even Anna has left for similar reasons.  The situation was good when progress appeared to be made.  However, every time someone new jumps into the fray sending the discussion into circles it becomes frustrating for those who have been involved.  If you can find another admin good luck.  But, unfortunately, there always seems to be someone hijacking the process.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion derailers will be treated just like any other disruptive editor, they'll be given warnings and proceed appropriately to blocks. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any admin is willing. I do have an Idea however. We do have a few editors who SAY they are willing to work at it. This talk page shows we tried to get consensus and change MMA NOT criteria. If they really want to build content in Compromise, give them free reign over the Omnibus and continue to AfD individual articles.

I'd still like, as a show of good faith, to try and get UFC 146 closed as KEEP in an efort to show good faith, despite it's failing WP:FUTURE.

Just an FYI, All the other UFC fights I closed withdrew will be opened again, but I am going to also use it to drive people to find sources and if they can KEEP the articles that are notable. However, If we can put a stop to Future events being created as stand alone articles, and let them have leeway at the Omnibus, it may be a way to dent the cesspool it's food after awhile.

Dennis and other admins thoughts on the whole arena are the reason I think we need to continue. If not, all of wikipedia is destined to a slow creeping failure.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What's indisputable about this whole fiasco is that as much as the AfD clique tries to hide behind "assume good faith", it's blatantly obvious that no one in the subject space trusts them as human beings even the slightest as they abuse the system for whatever kicks they get out of it. Trust is built through acting out good faith, a concept so seemingly foreign to these "people" that quotes around the word is strangely poignant. That's simply a piece of reality that no bureaucratic rule can change. The other more fundamental reality is that a loophole exists in "Wiki-law" which allows individual entries to be picked off via AfD, even when the entries taken as a cohesive set (which they undoubtedly are as evidenced by consistent linkage and indexing) do not violate any rule, and there doesn't seem to be a ruling or tool or hack to protect this scenario. This is something others and I asked Dennis about numerous times, and if he had only acted in good faith by ensuring users that this is a wish they have to hold off on as a temporary shelter is built in the meantime, then trust can be gradually built in the process. Note this is a question the AfD clique avoided with a vengeance, since their obvious goal is to minimize the presence of MMA on wiki. Even though we charitably call them bureaucrats, real bureaucrats would by definition accommodate or even welcome new rules or tools as long as it's sufficiently spelled out.


 * Until an admin or whatnot comes along who's willing to face these core truths, this battle of the deletionist's creation will not end. Again, let's be clear, the only reason any other "side" (currently a unorganized mash of MMA misfits) exists is just an inevitable consequence of the AfD clique's pursuit to ruin the pages used by tens of thousands as they exist today. Assuming basic facts away is not how reality works, and any solution, including the previous one, that doesn't follow the rules of reality sets itself up to fail. Agent00f (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so that we can all be clear. Agent00f are you saying that any efforts to continue to construct notability guidelines for MMA event articles will result in you, and others, to continue to war against it, be nonconstructive and disruptive towards those efforts?  Because that's what it sounds like to me.  Also, your attacks on Dennis, me and others is in poor taste and is not tolerated on Wikipedia.  I would suggest you strike your comments.  If you have questions about that, we can certainly discuss it on your talk page as this is not the correct place for that.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason I believe many of the AfD clique have trouble comprehending what is being said is because it's spoken by an honest person who acts in good faith instead of mock the idea by pretending its existence regardless. It's understandable that folks who've pretended for too long have lost touch with how faith and trust works between humans in the real world. I've said many times that the MMA userbase is willing to bear the bitter reality that a given solution is the best we'll get as long we're not lied to and treated with general contempt on a constant basis. Covering up deception because speaking of it (while not the act of doing it) is "against the rules" is a disgrace to everything an ethical person should stand for. It's increasingly obvious that wiki-rules (including its processes) do not yet contain the toolset to resolve this peculiar dilemma and instead of working to rectify that problem, people seem content to cover it up and hope for the best. Let me ask a question you'll hopefully answer instead of ignore as usual: will anything except good conscience protect splintered event pages from AfD by the gang here in the future if we proceed on the current course, or even the whole thing out of contempt since it by design will not have the "prose" that is to be splintered? And where will this good conscience suddenly emerge from? In better times harsh comments are not in the domain of polite conversation, but it's the dose this affair needed and deserved from the beginning. Agent00f (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to speak of notability guidelines/solutions, it seems to me that a simple change in the sports section for cohesive and consistent (chained, list indexed) sets of entries as long as the whole meets the general guidelines is sufficient. This is simply a matter of organization. If we just add a strong "up-link" at the top of the page to a list of UFC events (which already exists), it's no different than an omnibus in spirit, only much better organized in comparison. You don't need me to spell out if the AfD clique will stand for this. Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to accept the core truth that the MMA enthusiasts are refusing to be a part of the Wiki Community. Compromise requires both sides to give.  Considering that the entire concept of an omnibus is outside the standard operating procedure, it's time to see the MMA enthusiasts to take some steps forward. Please stop assuming bad faith by calling those of us who are trying to meld policy with the desires of the MMA community as AfD clique. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to even consider the change just above? All I see here is a plan that one group with no subject expertise concocted being shoved onto people who have to live with it. You've seen my comment on the ANI page. Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I reject your premise that the group trying to push the guideline forward is attempting to minimize the coverage of MMA on Wikipedia. We are trying to save coverage by transforming the existing single event articles which are likely to be judged by a editor in good standing as not meeting the requirements into something that has a higher chance of surviving routine scrutiny. The reason why there are very few editors working in the space that have experience with MMA directly is because they've all been driven out by harassment, outing, deliberate attacks, and plain exhaustion in having to re-fight the same battle every single time. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, no reply at all to the proposal at a realistic solution above, just more bullshit. Business as usual. "reason why there are very few editors working in the space", oh good riddance, we only wonder why so many remain. Agent00f (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One could argue your no reply at all was doomed to failure at the outset based on the accusatory tone that it started off with. Besides you still haven't answered the question I originally posed in this section, Are you (collectively Agent00f and the other enthusiasts) willing to subject yourselves (just as I am willing to subject myself) to a administrator who will apply the community guidelines for conduct and debate going forward?  I've always welcomed outside review of my actions, and with a few exceptions, have been keeping a civil tone with trying to explain the same points over and over again.  How have you done in the civility department? Hasteur (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "no reply at all" is entirely factually accurate and it seems you only want it changed because it reflects badly, not because it's not true. I only hope you don't edit wiki in the same manner. If we can't be straight, then there's no point in talking. If you don't like me, you don't have to pretend you do; it serves neither of us any favors and only impedes honest discussion. Second, I have no idea what you mean. It's already been clearly state that we want an admin who is at least neutral, not someone colluding in private with people who act in bad faith to come up with a plan to shove on the rest of us. Frankly, if the AfD clique doesn't keep interjecting their tainted interests in the process, which they had no business in anyway given the obvious conflict of interest, this could probably be easily resolved to the satisfaction of both wiki and MMA userbase. I'm perfectly willing to trust TreyGeek (or even you) if he demonstrates action in good faith. We'll see if his proposal at least tries to clarify the organizational issue or it's the same bullshit. Agent00f (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great to see you can dance around the question with the greatest of ease. You wanted a simple answer I provided my response.  You still haven't answered my question simply. I'm glad to see actions of good faith are well recieved by the MMA userbase.  Please consider not posting unless you have something constructive and susinct to post. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is clearly stated, I only elaborated so you wouldn't be confused. We want a fair admin. An unfair admin clearly will not do as this whole debacle demonstrated. Agent00f (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the counter listed at the WikiProject: Mixed Martial Arts page, there are 2,404 articles that are associated with the project. Please strike your earlier hyperbole of "by the tens of thousands" as it serves no purpose but to inject extra drama into a situation already drama filled. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean users, as in "the pages used by tens of thousands". Stop "assuming bad faith". Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming bad faith, I am making a collegial good faith request for you to retract or clarify our earlier statement. In response to the page being "used" by tens of thousands, there is a guideline called WP:HITS which (in a nutshell) says that page accesses don't justify notability or inclusion.  Your initial statement appeared to imply that the group was deleting tens of thousands of MMA based articles which is grossly in the realm of hyperbole.  I question if other editors who had read the statement might not have taken the same assumption. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My "initial statement"? Those words were never changed, and don't need to be changed since it's simple english. Are you implying people here can't read english? Also, are you still insinuating that a sport watched by millions and covered by every sports site (espn, yahoo, fox) is not notable? Is this some kind of wiki in-joke? Agent00f (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In skimming over the wall of text I too thought I read it as tens of thousands of articles were being deleted. That's usually why short, succinct statements are better than long-winded ones. (Which I'm about to break.)  Before I sit down to spend a few hours writing up a research grant report a couple notes.  Agent00f's suggestion of changing the "sports section" to allow for a string of related articles.  I assume you mean modifying WP:NSPORTS which is going to require an RfC just as modifying WP:MMANOT and getting it approved would.  The attempt has been to derive a set of notability guidelines specifically for MMA events that is based upon Wikipedia's broader notability guidelines.  Both will ultimately achieve the same goal, in my opinion, but by getting WP:MMANOT worked out and approved gives something more specific to MMA.  There are a set of guidelines that have been proposed to allow individual articles covering a specific MMA event.  It's up above (somewhere) and the "deletionists" like myself and Mtking were willing to support before the discussion was hijacked.  As an MMA fan and a long-time contributor to the MMA WikiProject (though the harassment over the last two months has me leery of continuing to participate) I want to find a way for MMA related content to remain on Wikipedia and at the same time conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  I'm thinking about, later tonight, to "reset" the discussion.  By that I mean create a(nother) new section that condenses/rehashes the notability guideline ideas from above in hopes that the discussion can move forward in a constructive way.  If I do this, my hope is that everyone put aside their battleground tendencies (including myself), the long diatribes, the half-veiled and full-on attacks, and work together to figure out how MMA content can be on Wikipedia.  I just hope I'm not being a masochist by even thinking about doing so.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we both know that the MMA community is reacting to this mostly because deleting entries (ie breaking the cohesive set) without another solution in place is fundamentally in bad faith. If you're going to destroy the value of the whole, might as well make it either/or for consistency. By placing people who're acting in bad faith all along as more than equal "partners" in the process, a clear conflict of interest btw, the place reeked of impropriety from the start. We also both know that pandering to deletionists have already driven away more contributors than one. Again, the MMA userbase is not here to war, but people will war when they're treated like the MMA userbase.


 * You should consider the idea of inter-page coherency for whatever proposal. Again, this is only a matter of organization, not necessarily content (you should know about data structures). We both know this will solve the problem, so by starting there and pushing back against bureaucratic red tape if any comes it would demonstrate to even the most reluctant that work is being done in good faith. That's all anyone is asking. Agent00f (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth (let's hope it's not a waste this time) and here's a framework that I think most (ie consensus) can agree to. In short, it's basically 80% of the omnibus with an intro tweak to improve notability above and beyond omnibus standards, plus some allowance for cleanly organized (ie templatized) event chains:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual_Events. Amend to note that if a lineal/ordered set of events as whole are notable along with a proper intro to the chain, then each individual element is, as long as it's presented/linked in a consistent fashion. This would means that UFC/Bellator events can start with a page (linked a la "up" button from every subsequent event) to introduce them properly, and then the reader can easily navigate in a coherent way within this set. IOW, the intro page would be used as the main "standards-compliance" entry. This is a higher standard than the omnibus. This also compromises with deletionism since it means poorly written one-off entries wouldn't be saved from AfD while that might loophole omnibus.
 * This can also be cleverly merged with the omnibus idea by noting that if all events fit under a certain threshold (like BAMMA), then omnibusing under the intro is the way to go. As a temporary measure to make sure decent existing material doesn't get thrown out, hold off on AfD/delete until omnibuses for smaller orgs are created. I'd be perfectly willing to help with this. Moving forward after that, I don't think anybody would be too sore if their newly created page which doesn't meet the organization requirement is AfDed.
 * The combination of the two point above is really quite closely to what we already have. By starting with the omnibus idea, but instead of mandating everything be very confusing and clutter in the same entry, allow the giant list to be partitioned only if they're very carefully organized (which for example the UFC pages are).
 * IMO this is quite sensible and would be well supported by at least the userbase. The only difference to the existing plan is that a novel way of approaching navigation is written into the rules. The only thing the userbase can't stand is for EVERYTHING to be dumped wholesale when the existing well-formulate format is very nice to use and the alternative of 100 things crammed onto one page is asinine. If we hold the UFC "template" as close to the minimal standard, people would only be motivated to either raise the general level of organization/usability (very positive for wiki) for all the pages. Not sure if we can write the actual event template into the books, but a standard presentation for all mma events would be a positive for everyone. The benefit of templatizing would be that there's clear brightline test come AfD time.
 * I don't think anyone is against deleting crap. For example, I think most would be fine with detailed mma-centric minimal guidelines for individual entries (a la template) in addition to the linking requirements, but holding each event to a ridiculous level is pure bureaucratic idiocy when it's clearly part of a whole (in this case starting with the intro). Agent00f (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC) refined: Agent00f (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is more I don't like it.


 * If you want all events covered, in sequence, go ahead, everyone has agreed that can occur on the Omnibus. The lineal/ordered set of events as whole are NOT Notable according to sourcing provided and the condition of the articles, not to mention the WP:Future issues. WP is not structured for the maximum usage value to any single subject, it is structured as a User edited Encyclopedia. Just because an improper format was allowed to be used for any amount of time, does not make that form correct or fit into the encyclopedic guidelines.


 * Your approach is flawed, it implies that all UFC events are inherently notable, yet all do not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT,etc


 * There are UFC events that are not notable enough for a single article, hence all the previous dicussion,mediation,etc, that the omnibus idea arose from.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I've rewritten somewhat for clarification, please try again.
 * 2. Is your logic that the same set of events on one page (which you already agreed is notable) is more notable than the if they were cleanly split in a clear and organized way? How does that work in your head? These are not rhetorical questions so please answer them.
 * 3. WP is structured to compromise the general with the specific, which is why there are more specific separate guidelines for different subject matter. I'm not sure you understand what a compromise means; can you please define it so we can can know what you're talking about? Again not rhetoric. I'm quite serious. Agent00f (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You have succeeded in obstructing the process well enough to have Dennis drop out,Mreleganza stop participating,Udar55 stop participating,etc. Your statements about bad faith and previous behavior have left no one williing to work with you. The result will be more AfD's with deltetions and keeps, most likely more UFC articles than would have been able to be preserved otherwise.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you seem to miss is that this idea is very similar to omnibus but not as asinine to mma page user. I took some pains to compromise. So can you clarify if you personally dislike it simply out of spite or only because it's not entire what you want? TreyGeek actually seems like quite a reasonable person and this is really something for him to consider. Also, on the related note, did you see my comments on the ANI? The basic strategy of the AfD folks was to make decisions for everyone and cherry pick a few MMA guys to lend it credibility. If that's the standard operating policy before, what problem do you have with it now? Anyway, I can personally guarantee the userbase will like this a lot more than the omnibus alone. Agent00f (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Udar55 was not cherry picked, nor was Mrelganza. aside from that, you are still obsessed with the idea that all UFC events are inherently notable. The Omnibus and letting it be flexible with the rules WAS the compromise. you aren't trying to compromise at all. You are trying to reframe the same argument and belittle the editors that got tired of your disruptiveness and left to accomplish other things. I for one am done here as far as you are concerned, I will not respond to further posts by you or questions if I respond to a post from someone else. If you ever decide to be constructive, I'm sure you will find a willing ear somewhereNewmanoconnor (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you not capable of answering the simple question above? If you can't answer simple questions regarding your thought process, which is a basic requirement of logical thinking, then people won't take you seriously. Again, these aren't trick questions, and the only way it can possibly be "belittling" is if someone can't even explain their opinion. Write a clear response and prove what everyone already thinks about the AfD clique wrong.
 * Also, it's pretty clear you didn't even read the proposal, since it's basically 80% omnibus with 2 changes: a clear intro which improves notability, and another to accommodate clearly formatted event chains. If anything, they're tighter standards for content than the omnibus. Frankly it's not helpful for people who don't read to participate. Agent00f (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is "against" improving the original structure, or switching to an omnibus system if there really is no alternative. The problem Agent00f rightly addresses is that individual UFC articles have been deleted BEFORE a solution was in place. And worse, that the AfD's have been requested by Mtking, Newmanoconnor, etc who are the same people who are participating here in these discussions essentially forcing the issue. So this current situation (and all the subsequent drama) has been forced upon us by a very small set of users and could easily have been avoided if people hadn't been so overzealous in their application of the AfD requests. I'm glad most of the AfDs have been withdrawn for now, but the fact remains that as of this moment articles like UFC143 (which is not a future event) are still deleted and the new omnibus page isn't up to snuff. If we can all take a step back, restore the old system FOR THE TIME BEING, remove the partial lock on the omnibus page so we can have more people updating it, figure out if there are any alternatives to the omnibus page, and then move forward from there. Because as of right now, we have two broken systems in place (missing individual articles courtesy of Mtking and associates, and a half assed unwieldy omnibus page), and the longer this lasts the more drama we invite upon us. (75.101.47.18 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC))
 * I think our only frustration from this point on is that the AfD folk won't be able to recognize that this is 80% of the omnibus plan with very specific and frankly non-invasive changes. Also, despite pretending to leave in a huff because they now only get 80% of the say instead of de facto 100%, I'm sure they'll be following up to see if you're a sockpuppet. I hope the resulting tears will be just as sweet to you. As a practical matter, I think the articles are archived, so if we move reasonably quickly on this (and I think we can because I can't imagine much opposition from the userbase, nor any admin if any would approve of omnibus in the first place), it's possible the disruption would minimal. Agent00f (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you happen to be sitting in the cubicle next to me, I'm not colluding with you nor have any clue who you are. I also have no idea how to go about undoing a deletion, and Dennis didn't seem willing to help us out here. I'm willing to try and improve the omnibus page to have something workable in place, but I can't in it's semi-locked state nor do I know how to remove that lock. The main issue I have is that a handful of editors have forced this issue upon the userbase by requesting multiple AfDs without having a working alternative in place and then cry foul when you and others don't like it. If they had gone about this in a less heavy handed fashion we wouldn't be having these discussions. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f's solution is outstanding. It's the same content we all agree shouldn't be deleted, it would conform broadly to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia and it's in a usable format. In my view, pushing against a balanced solution like this and clinging to the most rigid interpretation of policy, disqualifies someone from the benefit of good faith initially assumed. I don't see how there can be any logical interpretation of such actions as anything but recklessly, or wilfully obstructive. It's not productive, and with respect, it has all the of a pointless (unless you're obsessed with getting your way on the internet, which granted, is not out of the realm of possibility for people, is it now?) power struggle.

I also see selective replying going on. So as to avoid any doubts about whether I employ innuendo, I will state what I mean as clearly as possible. Hasteur, you made a real point about me supporting my assertions, and practically demanded that I retract my statement if I couldn't. I did and I requested an acknowledgement from you on this matter and it was roundly ignored. This isn't innuendo. This is plainly stating facts about the uneven expectations of etiquette from the two camps. Being demanding and then not acceding to basic requests is really quite rude where I'm from. Perhaps it's not as frowned upon on these talk pages. Do remember we're still people, old chap. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for ruining UFC coverage on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I initially had something about how everyone should stop slinging around accusations of bad faith even if that may or may not be true for a few. I still think people should be more restrained to keep things from further deteriorating. However Newmanoconnor, if you're going to take a shotgun approach with AfDs again while we still have an ongoing discussion here, whether you're acting in bad faith or not doesn't matter because it practically amounts to the same thing. It's extremely counterproductive and is just pouring gasoline on fire EDIT: I ask that you please retract them again as an act of good faith /EDIT. So are ad-hominem attack on both sides, of which I'm not innocent, but I did later apologize for my initial reactions to this whole situation and am trying hard to argue in a dispassionate a manner. About recreating the articles deleted, I'm not sure that fully deleted articles actually are archived, but some of them have Portuguese-language versions that are pretty much mirrors and one could use those as a template, should it come to that. Now that I have that out of th way, I think we should be able to agree that second-tier promotions like BAMMA, KSW, Bodog Fights, Tachi Palace Fights, and even Sengoku are fine being entirely omnibused, maybe by year or whatever, provided that nothing is deleted prior to an omnibus article put in place. I would consider Affliction to be a top-tier promotion considering the all-star roster it assembled, but it was short-lived enough that I am certainly open to that one being omnibused as well. Right now, I think it would also be best to establish which promotions should have any individual event articles, whether it be one or two events in their existence or every event. By my count the number of historical MMA promotions in that category is around 8-10, with only two being active (UFC and Strikeforce). On the other end of the argument, even if certain UFC events fail to meet notability guidelines, there is a point where it shouldn't matter just for ease of use and being part of a larger legacy. Say, if notability could be established for 80 out of the last 100 events, the other 20 probably ought to exist regardless due to the way they are all laid out, and due to the larger legacy of the UFC. There is tons of precedence for this all over wikipedia. Would the 1959 Eurovision contest be nearly as notable if it wasn't part of a larger cultural institution? I think that's at least debatable. The UFC is certainly iconic within combat sports in general (not just MMA), and as it is still growing in popularity it is verging on being iconic within sports as a whole. What's more It actually costs less bandwidth to have smaller articles to link to than larger and more unwieldy omnibus ones. So, I think we need to keep all that in mind. Beansy (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will address this and any other issue on your talk page, after this final comment about AfD's.

Provided progress starts to be made,and we get a plan moving forward to RfC, I will withdraw my nom again. If necessary. I do, at this point wish, I had decided to wait 12 hours before renominating, or longer to see if this discussion can proceed anew as Treygeek has tried to start below. I am sure you can understand my frustration after losing 3 constructive participants. I am only unwilling to withdraw immediately because I did so last time and feel, it was taken advantage of, not accepted to continue in building constructive consensus.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not just keep both the separate event pages and the omnibus event pages with links directing to both to allow users to see the information the way they want to see it? 109.151.225.151 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward again
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Summary of my intentions: My intention with this section is to attempt to restart discussions on a possible set of guidelines for the notability of individual MMA events. If a consensus can be found here, then it can move forward to a possible RfC to attempt to make what we agree on into a guideline agreeable by the Wikipedia community at-large. What is below is the result of recent (within the last week or two), constructive discussions about the notability of MMA events. There are a couple things I'd like to stress first. I am not including discussion of omnibus articles in what I have below. I believe that omnibus articles can peacefully coexist with individual articles. There is debate as to the overall purpose, content and format of omnibus articles. However, I feel that is a different discussion for another venue (perhaps WT:MMA). I, personally, am more focused on possible guidelines for the notability of individual MMA events, and for all possible promotions not just UFC.

That said, in the discussions to follow, I hope that we can have an intelligent discussion/debate as mature adults (event if you aren't one in real life). I would rather not see finger pointing at any person or group, personal attacks or derogatory comments directed at any person or group. Wikipedia has a policy in place in regards to this issue (WP:NPA) and I think admins won't be shy to liberally apply it at this point. Therefore, I will ask for people to discuss the notability issue and not "obstructionists", "AfD cliques", or other references to groups of people. With that, let's try to proceed.....

Notability proposal
Below is a proposal to modify WP:MMAEVENT to read and/or include the following:

Individual events are not inherently considered notable. Articles about individual MMA events can exist if they meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The criteria below provides guidance as to how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may apply to MMA events:


 * Inclusion Criteria: For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article, the article should have at least one source that is reliable, independent of the subject, and discusses the event and its significance. This means that one or more sources pass WP:RS, is not primarily MMA related, and the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results.  Websites such as Sherdog.com are allowable, and preferable, for sourcing facts.  However, they should not be used to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events.  This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports.  Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.


 * Article Content: Individual event articles should not be created until they are announced through one of the fully independent sources as mentioned in the inclusion criteria.  Individual event articles should contain enough prose so that non-MMA fans can understand what lead up to the event occurring, the individual fights themselves, any after-effects of the event and the significance of the individual event.  Ideally, at least 3 to 4 paragraphs besides the fight descriptions for stand alone event articles should be used.

Discussion 2
Again, this is what I've managed to reconstruct from the discussion above and/or in the talk page's archives. The relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines being applied here are: The verbiage used above is intentionally generic but should apply to the concerns that have been addressed. If UFC events are truly notable, then finding them covered at some point by ESPN, CNN, or other non-MMA media shouldn't be difficult. Feel free to offer your feedback, suggestions or counter-proposals. However, please keep it WP:CIVIL and counter-proposals should be supportable by existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines (at least in my opinion they should). Finally, don't expect an immediate response from me about any comments that follow, and don't be surprised if I wait 12 hours before responding to anyone. I, personally, would rather see what everyone else has to suggest and consider them as a whole. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * General notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * WP:FUTURE: Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
 * WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
 * WP:SPORTSEVENT: Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats.
 * WP:PROSE: Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.


 * Speaking only on what you have proposed for RfC, though I personally think two independent sources should be required for notability, I would endorse this plan.


 * I also feel that if a lower tier mma organization has an event that meets these criteria, a stand alone article should be created, but that it must pass a two independent source guideline.


 * I apologies for just not commenting at times earlier, I was simply frustrated, that got the better of me a bit, I will be adjusting that some above, if you have an opinion on anything I've done in the past 12hrs, post it farther up, or on my talk page whether it has to do with AfD's, or previous comments.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose it is not what we want and is in breach of BUREAUCRACY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs)
 * We're creating a guideline to help uninvolved (i.e. Not MMA fans) editors detemine if the individual event article is notible. In no way is this adding additional process therefore WP:NOTBURO is not a valid argument. Hasteur (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support not much to add. Mt  king (edits) 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support susinctly and easily codifying the current policies with examples specifically for MMA based topics. Hasteur (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE.  Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc.  The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights.  They involve notable fighters.  They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions.  They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons.  Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide.  These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
 * Not a deletion discussion about any article. Try again. Hasteur (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @IP24.x.x.x, while you start off stating your opposition to the notability proposal, the rest of your comments seem to support it. You state that "about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press".  The notability guideline proposal above allows MMA events who are covered by at least one mainstream press article to be notable enough for an individual article.  I am hoping you'd be able to further explain your opposition to the notability guideline proposal and specifically what part of the proposal you dislike and/or what should be modified with it.  --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not support any inclusion criteria based on something elitist and arbitrary sounding as "notability". Verifiability and usefulness to some percentage of our readers is all that really concerns me.  If these articles are not hoaxes and are backed by reliable sources, then that should be good enough.  "Notability" smacks of subjective opinion, because it varies from person to person.  Inclusion criteria should be based on more tangible factors, and really, the whole whether or not the stuff had mainstream coverage really seems beside the point.  If the purpose of Wikipedia per WP:FIVE is to be a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs, well, if you lumped together all the encyclopedias and almanacs published, including the UFC Encyclopedia, which falls under that specialized encyclopedia aspect of our first pillar, then, indeed such an all-encompassing compendium of knowledge would include tables and lists of sports results and events.  Not every aspect of an almanac or encyclopedia is prose.  Even Britannica had pages of tables and lists.  Almanacs most certainly do as well.  Not every article has to be a thirty paragraph featured article to be worthwhile for inclusion, just as Britannica had the micro and macro editions.  Even if something is perpetually a stub, so be it.  I just will never get the whole idea that information that is not made up and actually is used by thousands of readers should not belong here because the handful of accounts who focus their attention on AfDs say so.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
 * As elitist as it may sound, notability is a very important guideline to establishing inclusion criteria. It's the reason why each Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn't have their own article.  Ish dar  ian  05:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you'd support the creation of Championship Fight 11 an MMA event from the Nitrix promotion simply because it is listed at Sherdog.com? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of any event that can be verified through reliable sources. The whole appeal of Wikipedia is its comprehensiveness.  Any event that is not simply made up, I see no reason why we shouldn't cover it.  We are not limited in the way a Britannica was.  --24.112.202.78 - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ScottMMA, I understand your possible concern with setting more rules that must be followed. However, in the four years I have been around Wikipedia there has never been a good understanding of what MMA events are notable and which are not (again, I'm referring to all possible MMA events and not just UFC).  This needs to be understandable to admins, which very few may be MMA fans, because they ultimately decide based upon the arguments presented what passes AfD and what is deleted.  This has resulted in the rash of AfDs in the last two months but AfDs have always been an issue with MMA WikiProject for lower tier promotions and their events.  What this proposal is attempting to do is take the half dozen or more Wikipedia guidelines and policies and combine them into a single, understandable guideline regarding the notability of MMA events.  Without doing so the AfDs and confusion over what MMA events are notable and not notable may continue.  --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for inclusion criteria: I think it would be very helpful to show examples from articles about what is "routine" coverage versus what would warrant inclusion.  Regarding the Article Content/length requirement:  This is going to instantly take out a lot of articles.  I'm not opposed to that if that's what the community agrees to.  Still, I feel that in, for example, the area of music, editors use stub vs. article classification very well.  Right now, a lot of MMA events are stubs event if not classified as such.  If they meet the inclusion criteria, I'd suggest we include the article regardless of length (or with perhaps a one paragraph intro) and call it a stub as you might find on some notable album article with little content.  A lot of work has been put into some of the articles, although they may not have sufficient prose to meet the criteria above.  I agree that doesn't make them articles, but I'm concerned that a blank page (from deletion) might discourage someone from expanding a stub article.  I am still arguing that you need the independent non-routine source for an event page, but once you have that, it can stand as a stub until it meets the content requirement above, at which point it would become an article.  Going to sleep now.  Thank you everyone. --Policy Reformer(c) 05:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the article content criteria should be removed? Or could it be modified to allow for event stubs if the article lead includes a paragraph to "establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" (WP:LEAD)?  It could then go on to say that "ideally" a full article should contain at least 3-4 paragraphs blah blah blah.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem for letting the articles remain as stubs is that typically the articles get created with content/formatting that raises the article above the level of stub, but doesn't have enough to really qualify it for a full strength article. The content is typically flash in the pan (obviously events like UFC 94 are the counter example of enduring content/coverage).  If we allow stub level articles all it does is postpone the discussions regarding notability down the road, ergo that's why we're trying to set out a definite set of minimums that ensure that should they be met, they're probably safe from a deletion attempt.  Typically there's only about 2.5 paragraphs of cited prose out there for most events,  by pushing the minimum to 3~4 paragraphs, it ensures that the article demonstrates it notability thoroughly. Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for Inclusion Criteria and amend Article content I agree that we need something notable to provide as an example of non routine coverage, UFC 146 may be a start,we should look for others.I think the Article content clause should have the 3-4 paragraphs requirement struck and replaced with something closer to what PR and Trey are discussing. I need to think on that a bit.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to draft this in to a RfC ?
Given the only opposes above is from a blocked SPA is it time to draft a formal RfC proposal on this now ? Mt king (edits) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know of 2 registered accounts that might have some thoughts to share (granted they'll probably be obstructionist), but I'd like to let Agent00f to have his say so that he can't accuse us of shotgunning the proposal while he was blocked. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at this page all day trying to figure out where to go from here since conversation seems to have stalled. I personally would be interested in hearing from PolicyReformer and Portillo (PR about stubs and Portillo about how much their statements matches the proposal above).  As for Agent00f and ScottMMA, my only response to waiting on them is a shrug at this point.  Looking forward to a possible RfC, do we simply slap an rfc template on the relevant section containing he proposal and advertise about it?  (If an MMA ANI is still open when the RfC is started, that'd probably be a good place.) Or is there something more formal that should be done?  (I've only glanced at WP:RFC, so if the answer is to go read it fully, that's a fair answer. :)  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if we are going to move forward We should archive this page and start the RfC on a new one,also having a link to this would be helpful for those that may want to read it.Leaving it seems like it just leaves the page too cluttered, and who knows how many people are gonna comment at RfC. Speaking of that, I think we should ask ScottyWong to protect the RFC.Waiting on Agent00F, I'm in agreement with Trey there, but Portillo,Udar55,PR,all hopefully will chime in, or at least we should give them time to.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not saying start the RfC, just draft the question and seek feedback on that, I agree that to start an RfC this instant might be seen by one or two editors as shotgunning. I think a new page should be started for the RfC, and that it should be publicised as widely as possibly, for example Centralized discussion as well as notices placed at WP:ANI and WP:AN as if the result is to have any credibility it needs to be seen as having had as wide a possible participation. Mt  king (edits) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with your points.  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's a good, solid proposal that gives enough guidelines to avoid future drama. As I commented on ANI, I also think there's a wider issue here, not just MMA.  WP:ROUTINE pretty strongly says don't just report results.  So if the event results are published in, say, USA Today, you've got the one mainstream, non-MMA source that some of the options I've seen call for, but you've still got a routine article.  Is that acceptable?  Toss in some slippery slope stuff and it's tough.  From the MMA forum users, I doubt any proposal that doesn't automatically allow articles for all UFC events (PPV, Fox, FX, etc) will get any support.  I know the three of you expect that, but it needs to be said.  That has the implication that anything from the RFC will be a challenge to enforce.
 * I think whatever is proposed in the RFC needs to be clear not coached in WP terms as much as possible. If omnibus articles are deemed the approach going forward (as I think it should), here's a rough outline.  Start with one article per MMA organization.  When to split it out by year.  When to split further (example - I think UFC's omnibus would benefit from being split further).  Require event articles to start as redirects to the omnibus and ONLY get split into their own article when there is talk page consensus.  Give some concrete examples of when an article should be split into a separate article.  State clearly that major events for top-tier organizations have a lower standard for being split off than non-major events or events from organizations not in the top tier.
 * Something else that could be good to include in the RFC is to restate the purpose of Wikipedia articles - to summarize and include significant details, not include every little thing. It might help with the MMA forum users to give them a better understanding of Wikipedia.   Ravensfire  (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Could you please summarize the contents of the prospective RfC here before it happens? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Notability proposal
Below is a proposal to modify WP:MMAEVENT to read and/or include the following:


 * Inclusion Criteria: For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article, the event should have been covered by at least one of the major MMA news sites such as mmajunkie.com, mmamania.com, mmatorch.com, mmaweekly.com or sherdog.com

Discussion 3
Strong support it is simple and what the fans want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) Support More than MMA sources should be added however. USA Today, Daily Telegraph, ESPN, Fox Sports, Telegraph, [http://sports.yahoo.com/ufc;_ylt=AnsFERqIogtw9cR7SlEu9Tdiu8J_ Yahoo! Sports] and many other mainstream media outlets cover UFC events. Portillo (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in keeping with WP's existing policies and would not stand any chance in getting passed a RfC. Mt  king (edits) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is way out of line with policy. The proposal above this one is a lot more in depth in regards to supporting policies. Scott, I know you're upset about this whole ordeal, but not every MMA event is going to be notable. Just because it happens, doesn't mean it meets standards for inclusion. 174.252.42.235 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) My comment. Adding sig.  Ish dar  ian  02:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball's Chance in Hell Oppose So far out of line that would allow single even backyard fights to get included. Hasteur (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE.  Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc.  The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights.  They involve notable fighters.  They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions.  They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons.  Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide.  These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
 * Not a deletion discussion. Try again. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not very polite. Try again. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. 24 IP address, we are not talking about deleting the article, we are talking about proposing a guideline to help uninvolved editors determine if an article meets the notability guidelines for Wikipedia.  Your support rationale suggests you believe this is a Articles for Discussion regarding UFC events.  It is not.  Because your support of the proposal appears to be non-sequitor to the debate your viewpoint will very likely be discounted on the grounds that it is off topic. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this proposal will have a hard time gaining approval from the wider Wikipedia community via RfC. It basically allows an event at even some of the smallest, and potentially least notable, organizations to have an article discussing an individual event.  Specifically, this proposal allows for an article about today's Championship Fight 11 by the Nitrix promotion because it is listed at Sherdog.com.  This proposal would need more refinements from it's current state I think.  --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Portillo, if you believe that MMA event articles should contain at least one source from mainstream media, why not support the proposal above this one? It requires at least one mainstream media source just as you are advocating here. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If all a UFC event needs is one source from mainstream media, then just about all pay-per-view events will be notable enough for individual articles. Since all UFC events are covered by mainstream media. Something tells me that even with mainstream media sources, UFC events will still not be allowed. Portillo (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If all that's in the article is the fights and results, then it's going to run afoul of WP:ROUTINE. You've got to find something that makes that particular event notable.  You don't see articles for single football games other than the Super Bowl or conference championships.  Same for baseball, basketball, etc.  It takes something like Philip Humber's perfect game to get an article - that's something that's happened just 21 times.  By comparison, no-hitters are just in List of Major League Baseball no-hitters - they aren't notable enough for their own article.   Ravensfire  (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think UFC should be compared to WWE and boxing events, not to seasonal sports like football, baseball, soccer etc. Portillo (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty reasonable. I think the majority of UFC numbered events are going to be notable. The events where titles change hands, records are set, and major injuries occur are generally going to garner the most coverage. It's the smaller MMA organizations that aren't going to recieve anything other than routine coverage in mainstream sources.  Ish dar  ian  05:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree to have all MMA events besides UFC to have omnibus articles. Pride and Strikeforce have had notable events, but I can compromise. Portillo (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See, I like the idea of omnibus articles. They work, when used properly. I earnestly believe the UFC omnibus should stay. For the select UFC articles that do not meet notability standards on there own can be included in the omnibus. Similarly, UFC events that DO meet notability standards get their own articles and can be linked to from the omnibus. Take the List of Street Fighter characters article, for example. This is the way it should work. Also, I meant to say "smaller MMA organizations that aren't often going to recieve anything other than routine coverage in mainstream sources." Some will, and they will meet standards for their own articles.  Ish dar  ian  08:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Again I would agree that the smaller UFC events like UFC on Fuel, Fight Night, UFC on FX etc, can be merged into an omnibus article. UFC pay-per-view events are notable enough for individual articles. Portillo (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Using UFC 145 as an example, sorry, no way based on how that's written. Look at WP:ROUTINE, that's all you've got in that article.  Routine coverage.  If that's the standard for how MMA folks want their articles, this problem will continue to crop up.  Simply put, there's nothing there to demonstrate much for that event.   UFC hosts quite a few PPV events - what makes any particular event stand out compared to another?  146 meets that with the drug test failure.  The potential for an article doesn't matter - it's the current state of the article that has to meet the notability requirements.  Simply reporting the match results (aka routine coverage) doesn't meet that test.
 * Here's something that kinda surprises me. Wikipedia really isn't about routine stuff like this.  You aren't going to find box scores for the Cubs latest game here.  You'll find a summary of their 2012 season.  What we do is link to external sites for those details.  Why a good, solid MMA site hasn't figured that out and positioned itself to be that detailed site for WP is surprising.  There's a lot of traffic.  Use WP as the summary of the events and use the external site for the details.  You know, like most articles do.
 * The omnibus itself should really be split into UFC events, UFC on Fox and UFC on FX articles. It IS too big as it's currently written.  Create a List of UFC events in 2012 article that lists all events by date with location and link to the main article.  Now you're splitting it up but you've got an easy way for folks to see the full list.   Ravensfire  (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * UFC events should not be compared to seasonal sports but WWE and boxing events. If your saying that we should expand the article and explain why the event is notable, that can be done. For example UFC 145 featured the rivalry between Jon Jones and Rashad Evans, which featured heavily in the media.123 Portillo (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was the intent behind the article content criteria as I understood it; to require some amount of prose to "explain why the event is notable". --TreyGeek (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah - sports are sports. WWE in particular is a poor comparison - it's unabashedly entertainment not sports.  Boxing is also pretty poor - fighters don't compete as often and there's nothing like UFC in the boxing realm that advertises/promotes/runs large numbers of events under it's moniker.  If anything, football is a great example as most individual games get as much, if not more, coverage than any given UFC PPV.  You don't seen articles on individual games though.  It takes something tremendous for an article for a single game to appear.    I've seen things like that for quite a while, but all the MMA folks bothered to do was put in the routine stuff.  That's what needs to change.   Ravensfire  (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So MMA editors should expand UFC event articles and explain why they are notable, agreed. In contrast, I dont think its a good idea to go around deleting and merging UFC articles left and right in a heavy handed way. It is incredibly frustrating and timewasting. Portillo (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Portillo, correct me if this is wrong. It appears you support the idea that MMA event articles should cite at least one source from mainstream media.  It also seems to me that you also agree that MMA event articles should contain some degree of text to explain why the event is notable.  I'm curious what about the first proposal in this section (with inclusion and content criteria) do you disagree with?  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the heavy handed way editors have been going around decimating, deleting and merging UFC articles. It has been incredibly annoying, frustrating, non-sensical and confusing. Even if an article is reliably sourced, expanded and notability established, it seems as if these editors will still find an excuse to delete it. Portillo (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)