Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 November 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. WP:N applies. I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. The only sources cited are from MMA media and the UFC which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader nor does the article contain prose which asserts why the event is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious trolling with suggested deletion of multiple MMA-related articles. Please stop this. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. Courier00 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Courier00 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Who put the "canvassed" warning after my comment? I've been following the UFC for several years and have been using Wikipedia for several years as well. How dare someone accuse me of canvassing with absolutely no proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courier00 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Us fighters and especially the sport itself would appreciate it if that single person would mind their own business and leave the MMA pages alone. --------------------J Savage — j savage 666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep Can't understand why someone wants to ruin Wikipedia by deleting these MMA articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.75.138 (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — 91.154.75.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete/Merge I don't see how this event meets WP:EVENT or that its coverage will be anything but routine sports results reporting. Astudent0 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article that shows lasting significance or anything but routine sports coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep 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) 15:57, 11 May 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.