Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:29, 17 March 2012

UFC 140

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the only source older than than 24 hrs after the event is an unofficial source of Pay-per-view stats, there is no coverage for this event outside the specialist MMA publications and what there is from those publications is just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mt king^(edits) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT due to coverage in such non-MMA specific publications as USA Today. Massive number of sources in multiple languages exist for this notable event. Lazy, if not dishonest nomination. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, so which sources demonstrates the historical significance of this event then ? Mt king^(edits) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating a fact is not a personal attack. If you do not think this topic is notable or non-routine, then you are ignorant of the subject matter. I am ignorant about how some chemical things work. So if I started spouting off jibberish about chemistry, it would not be a personal attack for someone to accurately call me out on that. As far as "lazy" goes, well, come on, do you really, really expect anyone to believe that you looked for sources per WP:BEFORE? The amount available is overwhelming to the point that is flat out insulting to demand anyone else have to show them to you. If you seriously cannot see the sources for yourself by just doing a Google search, then you should not even be asking that question... I should not have to try to persuade what I suspect is at least a teenager that World War II occurred by enumerating source after source when that same person should be able to type n two words and see them all come up. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even MMA's own notability guideline WP:MMANOT. Mt king^(edits) 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, this article is notable. The Lightheavweight CHAMPIONSHOP of THE BIGGEST PROMOTION IN THE WORLD!! was defended in a televised card featuring fighters who appear in video games, on cards, etc. One of the all time greats and almost assuredly future hall of famers Tito Ortiz competed. Former champions competed. This card is historically significant by any rationale stretch of the imagination. [1]. The event is still be discussed in news reports from Canada to the beyond. From YahooSports to USA Today. A televised card from THE promotion with a championship fight and at least four former or current champions on the card just cannot be so flippantly and insulting dismissed as subjectively not notable. I mean,comeon!>?--63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately misleading ? WP:MMANOT#Individual Events says Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". (my bold and underline) so there you have it. Mt king^(edits) 23:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus. Individual events are indeed considered notable when they concern the Lightheavyweight Championship of the most notable promotion in the world when hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line and when an audience of millions at home around the world watch the event. The coverage in Brazil, America, Canada, etc. is not "routine", but exceptional. A championship fight is to MMA what a Superbowl is to football. Plus, yeah, it really is better for the world that this article be redlinked and instead we have a discussion about it for people to read, yeah, that's reallll helpful....--63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe any and all UFC events are inherently notable and that many UFC events do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For now I am going to refrain from !voting on this AfD because I'm on the fence. I will say, that the article in its current state does fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article consists mostly (if not nearly entirely) of a collection of results and 'statistics'. WP:SPORTSEVENT says, "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose", which this article doesn't have much of; even the background section is really just a list of facts about the event in sentence form.

WP:EVENT provides additional guidelines which the article, in its current form, does not comply with. Specifically, the article does not show that is of of lasting significance; rather it makes it seem like an MMA event was held, big whoop, there's another in less than three weeks (UFC took a break for Christmas). The article makes no attempt to explain why this event will be important five months from now, let alone five years from now. It also does not show a diversity in sources as all cited sources are from MMA news websites; notable UFC event articles should be able to cite sources from more mainstream media (USA Today, Sports Illustrated/CNN, etc).

Can the UFC 140 Wikipedia article fulfill these guidelines and prove that it is a notable event? It's possible, particularly with it having had a world championship bout on the card. However, in it's current state, it appears it may not fully meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article merely reports the fight results, therefore it fails to pass WP:EVENT or WP:ROUTINE. Sadly, that seems to be true of virtually every MMA event article. As long as the articles consist primarily of fight results, I believe they will continue to not meet the notability criteria. As far as having notable fighters goes, previous discussions at WT:MMA have said that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, you need to actually read the article before commenting. It has sections on critical reception, DVD release, firsts associated with the event, etc. Your claim that it is just results it baltantly false and anyone who actually reads the article can see that. So, did you just boilerplate comment to delete as you seem to do for all MMA events or are you just flatout lying? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why don't we also nominated Super Bowl XLVI for deletion?(Justinsane15 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Ha! Don't give 'em ideas, because those saying to delete here probably will take you up on that! :) --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:TreyGeek, who correctly notes that the article has potential. At first I thought April Fool's Day came early when I read this nomination, but in any event, this article can and should be improved, but is unquestionably a notable, historic, and widely covered event with longterm ramifications for the sport. I am especially appalled by the apparent lack of effort on the nominator's part to either find sources or to falsely claim they don't exist. The nomination inaccurately asserts that coverage only exists in specialist MMA sources. [http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mma/post/2011-12-10/nogueira-mir-ufc-140/

582590/1 this newspaper] is NOT an MMA-only rag by any stretch. And nor is [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jeff_wagenheim/12/11/ufc-1 40/index.html Sports Illustrtated]. The whole nomination paragraph is demonstrably false, because my source for searches included looking at those actually cited in the article, which does more than just list the results mind you, includes such well-known national media outlets as USA Today, Sports Illustrated, and various other non-MMA specific publications. I do not speak Portuguese, but I would be hardpressed to believe that given Nogueria and Machida's participation that Brazilian media hasn't also covered this event at some length. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you delete this one, then you would have to delete every other MMA event. c.m1994 (wtf is this $#*!?) 00:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SENSE. It concerns a major televised event from the world's most important MMA promotion with major fighters, including a title fight, and was covered in the mainstream press as pointed out above. Moreover, another editor has made considerable improvements to the article since nomination, which could and have should have been done instead of nomination per WP:BEFORE. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]

Keep as par WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:SENSE and for the clear fact that the nominator is fighting an already lost war against any MMA event on here. He's been claiming that any MMA event on here is just WP:ROUTINE and that because of this, they should all go (and has tried so many times from looking at past AfD cases). Well clearly not, because consensus says that UFC events meets more policies than it fails which gives them the right to remain on here. And because of this if any other major promotion has event pages also, as long as they receive a similar amount of coverage, then they can also remain on here. Like I said, its consensus that agrees to keeping these pages, if anyone disagrees with this, you are in your rights to vote against it, but if you start openly questioning the people who vote 'KEEP' in any AfD debate that is swaying for the overall majority vote to Keep the page/s, then maybe it would be for the best to avoid the topic altogether. Better out of it than given yourself heart strain over simple pages which are easier kept than destroyed. BigzMMA (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as frivolous nom by a suspected sock account. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete for lack of available sourcing that is both reliable and independent. Not everything a notable organization does is notable, and not every sport event is notable, particularly if only sports related sites and forums are talking about it. These keep coming out of the woodwork, we need to likely make one giant AFD and open it to a larger discussion. I'm sure that would be civil. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be sure to actually read the articles under discussions and to comment on them honestly. The event is covered by Sports Illustrated and USA Today, which are reliable independent sources cited in the actual article... Thank god these Afds are not just votes! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I combed over it better. Most of the refs are not WP:RS, but the one Sports Illustrated article is rock solid and the exact type needed to demonstrate notability. (I did miss that one last time, in a sea of less than reliable links, but this was still my mistake.) It is the only one, however, there is enough coverage from the other weak sources that it is very possible that it passes the criteria, at least in spirit. I struck my !vote. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being reasonable. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Personal attacks on nominator. Ad hominem arguments by almost all of the keep !voters. On the face of it, the sources provided have either not been reliable or contained significant mention. Relisting to allow more valid comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2011 in UFC events as per recent suggestion by the closing admin of a similar AfD and a discussion started at the MMA WikiProject here. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I agree that this is the best place, DGG was absolutely correct in his close of the other AFD. It will allow putting in the entries that aren't notable enough for their own article, and will consolidate the information in one place making it much more usable and useful for the reader. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as separate, because this one concerns a championship fight and so is not really the same as a random Fight Night. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.1) has already !voted on this AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :*In the end, I agree that this is the best place, DGG was absolutely correct in his close of the other AFD.  It will allow putting in the entries that aren't notable enough for their own article, and will consolidate the information in one place making it much more usable and useful for the reader.  [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown|talk]]) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' as separate, because this one concerns a championship fight and so is not really the same as a random Fight Night.  --[[Special:Contributions/63.3.19.129|63.3.19.129]] ([[User talk:63.3.19.129|talk]]) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
+:<small>'''Note:''' A very similar IP (63.3.19.1) has already !voted on this AfD.  --[[User:TreyGeek|TreyGeek]] ([[User talk:TreyGeek|talk]]) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)