Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am willing to userfy per the request. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAMMA 8

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

Fails WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results) the article does not attempt to demonstrate the event's lasting effect and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event. Mt king ^(edits) 06:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep par WP:GNG. Fellow editors keep in mind that such 'policies' such as WP:MMANOT and WP:MMAEVENT are purely guidelines and not an excuss nor a reason why this page should be deleted. BigzMMA (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is policy and it says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. and this event is a clear example of such an event. Mt king ^(edits) 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into List of BAMMA events or similar article with the other BAMMA events. My reasoning is the same as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9: the article contains only WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results and lacks "well sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat altering my !vote. I think established Wikipedia editors and admins are open to the idea of omnibus articles such as 2012 in mixed martial arts events and 2012 in UFC events. I'd like to ask for the contents of this article to be userfied at User:TreyGeek/BAMMA 8 to aid in the creation of a 2011 in mixed martial arts article. It would serve as a reminder to me to include the result of this event, in particular the "British Middleweight Title" and other possibly significant fights, in an omnibus article. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that this event has long term significance or is anything but routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. There's nothing to show this event has had long term significance. Mdtemp (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. I note that the only Keep proponent was just indef blocked for trolling and grotesque personal attacks, something of an unfortunate hallmark of several MMA edit warriors of late, and that despite his claim that the GNG supports his case, all the sources in the article are either primary, come from MMA blogs or are not about the subject. Ravenswing 10:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.