Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson

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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate why or how this event will have any lasting significance, the sources are purely routine announcements of who is going to appear NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Mt king ^(edits) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - UFC on FX 6 is a notable event because it will be the conclusion of The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes, a reality TV show broadcast in (at least) the UK and Australia. UFC is the largest MMA promotion company in the world. A quick count shows that there will be 30 UFC events in 2012. That should be compared to ~380 matches a year in Premier League for instance. In other words, you cannot compare UFC events to football matches when it comes to notability. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event in question will be a TUF finale, therefore it passes WP:EFFECT. Also, the creation of these articles was already discussed here: WP:MMA Talk/Archive 4. The finales are first and foremost their own MMA event, and are worthy of their own articles outside of the articles describing the rest of the series (this is actually a quote of a Drr-darkomen's comment from another AfD discussion). There are many fighters who aren't related to the show in the same event. Here's another comment from the same discussion made by jhanCRUSH: "(...) I was wondering myself why they didn't have their own articles, as the links on the MMA record boxes of the fighters who fought in the finale would lead to an article about an entire season of a show that they had nothing to do with. (...)". If you wish to know more about the subject, see The Ultimate Fighter and List of TUF champions. Poison Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to both Oskar Liljeblad and Poison Whiskey as with the final episode in all reality TV shows, they are coved in the article on the series as a whole. Your !votes do not address the lack of non-routine coverage of the event (as opposed to the reality TV show) and absent that policy is clear. Mt king ^(edits) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corn cheese (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles fall well under the scope of wiki policy. These are objective articles written from a neutral point, which includes sources from USAtoday MMA website, MMAJunkie; Sherdog; ESPN; TSN; Sportsnet, amongst others. Taken from the UFC 155 page: To address all those that say delete, WP:NOT DOES allow sporting events to be written, as long as they're written objectively, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Crystal Ball also allows for future events to be written as long as they are not speculative or unverifiable. MtKing could also included the ENTIRE quote, and not just the part that says no articles to be written on sports, or celebrities: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This articles are not being reported as "breaking news." Now, there is another quote that could be taken out of context which would also lead one to believe MMA/UFC/Sporting articles should deleted, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." However, that sentence is refering to writing articles as diaries, which has also not happened. Writing objective, neutral POV articles on UFC events is not breaking news, and is not a diary; so it has every right to have it's own articles. But, even if they were strictly against Wikipedia rules, then why deleted the information without retaining any? Why just delete pages without including the information on the page where it is being redirected?Autokid15 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im kind of getting annoyed with the recent articles being chosen for deletion, this mark the finale of one of TUF programs, confused as to why Mtking would even do this. Sepulwiki 16:47, 10 November (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per all keep votes above. Farcical anti-MMA biased editor who should be ignored. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr and ley 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per WP:EFFECT, as described above. I've been following this debate about the deletion of UFC articles for several months now, and it has become very clear that User:Mtking's actions fall under WP:WITCHHUNT. He has been trying again and again to not only delete this UFC event article, but nearly all of the event articles in UFC history. I posted on the discussion for deletion for another UFC event in the past and argued in favor of Keep, and because I was voicing an opinion in opposition to User:Mtking, I was immediately labelled as a sockpuppet. Several users have made clear, thought-out arguments as to why the UFC event articles should be kept and cited several Wikipedia policies to support their claims. Despite the fact that the number of Keeps widely outnumbered the number of Deletes, and despite the fact that the event articles were considered Notable as per Wikipedia policy, User:Mtking abused his powers as an administrator and deleted the articles. It is very clear that User:Mtking is on a WP:WITCHHUNT to delete nearly every UFC event article on Wikipedia. People who argue against User:Mtking are labelled as sockpuppets, and their arguments are either deleted or ignored as User:Mtking clearly has an agenda in mind and nobody is going to stop him from completing it. If User:Mtking is as sincere as he claims to be about cleaning up Wikipedia and only allowing Notable articles to exist, than I strongly suggest that he recuse himself from this discussion entirely and ask another Administrator (one who is not on a WP:WITCHHUNT and is impartial) to join the discussion and come up with a solution that is fair to both sides. Courier00 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to answer this, since it was well-written. The case is that UFC 27 is deleted, and some minor events as well. If you keep shooting from the hip many times, you ought to hit something once in a while. When that said, the admin Black Kite shouldn't be involved in the MMA community. He is biased and has said off-topic/off-discussion that he wouldn't see anymore of the noise that MMA makes. Doesn't sound neutral to me! Mazter00 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Evenfiel (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable event for reasons already noted.I remember halloween (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event serves as "The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes" finale. A title of "TUF winner" is being fought for here, and it's a competition of countries: UK vs. Austrailia, I find it funny MTKing would wanna delete this, since he is from Austrailia... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TUF finales are the starting point for many people's UFC careers, and they are the culmination of a months-long TV show as well. I just wish we were getting as many reasonable people on all the other article for deletion discussions. Byuusetsu (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment I just want to add in addition to the well-reasoned arguments above that any given UFC event includes 9-13 fights (usually 11) across multiple weight divisions with individual ramifications for each match. It's not comparable to a single soccer match, or American football game. Also a number of the "MMA media" sites are owned by mainstream media outlets such as Sherdog being a subsidiary of CBS Sports, and their journalists are accredited as such. Mtking at this point it really does behoove you to answer why you've gone well out of your way to target MMA pages specifically. There is no one else I have encountered on Wikipedia with your level of enduring zealotry. You've never given a coherent answer to that as far as I know and it seems you have gone well against the spirit of WP:WIN. Beansy (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep please! Stop this nonsense crusade against UFC on Wikipedia. The article is valid.TheAmazingChandler
Keep this is just another in a long line of MtKing attempts to have all things MMA removed from Wikipedia. The article is valid, and this argument has been had over and over again over the last year (see the huge number of AFD's on UFC pages). it's time to end this crusade/jihad against MMA articles. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way to have an overarching final decision made on a consensus driven portal like wikipedia. Trok333 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MMANOT: "Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event." This article has 12 citations, from 6 different sources. Both http://www.theherald.com.au/ nor http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ are typical newspaper websites and therefore "independent of the subject". The event is scheduled for December 15th and the sources range from September 7 to November 16, 2012. If this does not pass WP:MMANOT i'm not sure what will. if WP:MMANOT is not how we determine if an MMA article does or does not meet WP:NOTNEWSPAPER then we need to come up with a more clear standard. Kevlar (talk) 22:46, 20 November 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.