Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to 2012 in UFC events#UFC 149. While there are many keep !votes in this discussion, there are very few (if any) that have a valid, policy-based rationale. After removing them from consideration, there is agreement that this event should be covered at 2012 in UFC events unless it ends up receiving more than routine press coverage. Content from this article can still be found in the page's history if anyone would like to merge anything. -Scottywong| chat _ 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

UFC 149 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This event, not due for another three months clearly fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT notability guidelines, the coverage that this "event" received is totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part) the article does not attempt to demonstrate what this event's lasting effect is going to be and nor can it.

Countless notable organisations hold countless events every week that are not worthy of encyclopaedic note, this one is no different. Mtking ^(edits) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking ^(edits) 00:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Now that this card has had a press release in Calgary I think it's fair to say that it is a notable event. I've added the National Post, Vancouver Sun, Toronto Sun and ESPN as sources. I believe that the fact that it is a major UFC card (PPV) as well as the fact that the featherweight champion is fighting makes it the most notable type of mixed martial event show there can be. --Pat (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a press release does not make it fair to say that it is a notable event, have a read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the policy on such is very clear. Mtking ^(edits) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge UFC holds ±23 PPV events per year, which is about one every 2-3 weeks. In my view having an article about each event is akin to having an article about each week in an NFL football season. Having to pay to watch it via Pay Per View does not make it a notable topic. The National Post, Vancouver Sun, Toronto Sun, and ESPN reporting on its existance does not make it a notable topic, after all, they report on each week in NFL football (for example) and on each professional baseball, and NHL game as well. My opinion is these articles would be better suited for an omnibus article split by year, which lists who fought, who won, where it was hosted. Those events that are perticularly notable or unique (i.e. lasting effect, and that sort of thing as covered in WP:MMAEVENT). Overall most coverage of UFC events is quite routine.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2012 in UFC events as proposed in my sandbox and at the MMA WikiProject. The article currently contains only WP:ROUTINE fight and event announcements of a WP:SPORTSEVENT and lacks well sourced prose. The event is four months away and there have been very few fights announced for it, therefore it is WP:CRYSTAL to say if this event will be truly notable and have lasting effects. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: They're annoucing fights for this UFC event right now. There is no reason to delete this... Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the policy and guidelines that if fails ? Mtking ^(edits) 05:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of previously kept content. An Afd from but days ago closed with discussion to merge and to discuss that merge on the article's talk page. There was no consensus to delete this content and so the nominator after whining to everyone he could is now just trying to force his way through by trying again to delete previously kept content. In the week since the previous discussion closed, a plethora of new sources has turned up,which is why various editors are no for keeping instead of merging/redirecting. I don't know if the nominator was beat up as a kid and now just has it out for actual tough guys, but my God are his nominations increasingly absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Striking comments made by a blocked troll. Mtking ^(edits) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Event has been covered by multiple international sports journalist organizations, ESPN, SI, FOX etc. event itself is not WP:CRYSTAL as it has been announced and is being promoted by the UFC. Much like upcoming events like 2012 Vuelta a España, 2012 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, 2012 European Women's Handball Championship, 2012 IIHF World Championship, etc. Ppt1973 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant flaw in your analogy (apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). You are referring to annual competitions, UFC 149 is not in the same ballpark (pardon the pun) as those. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Any UFC event that has happened, or will happen, that has been announced should not be deleted. Period. JadeSnake (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2012 UFC events There is no basis in any policy to support the claim that any UFC is/will be automatically notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Even though it might conflict with some regulations from Wikipedia, I think traffic should decide the fate. If the articles on the UFC events see enough traffic, I don't see why not just leave them as is. However, I think the best solution overall would be to create a Wikia website JUST for UFC events, so each page could be preserved there. Then the UFC events could be merged together on wikipedia, and not as many people would be upset. However, unless that happens I still think there is enough traffic to warrant leaving the articles as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autokid15 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Autokid15 (talk • contribs) has only made 2 other edits in the last four years and only twelve others in total. Mtking ^(edits) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Encyclopedias are not popularity contests. Mdtemp (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as above. I find the nom's arguments persuasive, and the Keep arguments unpersuasive. Press releases and TV ads explicitly ≠ notable coverage. "Traffic" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) ≠ notable coverage. Truth be told, the most telling factor in the bankruptcy of these Keep arguments for MMA events is how few of them even attempt to cite valid Wikipedia policy grounds to buttress them. Ravenswing 10:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the redirect option is accepted by the closing admin, I'd suggest targeting the redirect at the UFC 149 subsection: 2012 in UFC events#UFC 149. I think it might result in people being less likely to remove the redirect since they'll immediately see the information on UFC 149. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as I suggested in my close of afd1. The same reason holds A list of UFC events is appropriate, for this and all future events (I didn't see a suitable one at the time, but suggested doing it by year.) Our present rules do not permit separate articles for most individual sports events.. There might be a case for expanding our coverage of sports events--I think someone suggested that covering each match in the major sports would take maybe 50,000 articles a year, which we could handle if we wanted to, but this would really need a new proposal and an rfc. I am certainly not going to propose it, because I am quite sure there would not be consensus for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2012 in UFC events then redirect - This was already decided just a couple week ago in the last AFD, essentially. Nothing has changed, except the article to merge TO finally exists. Having those 50,000 marginally notable articles doesn't make Wikipedia better, it just makes it a box of trivia, weakly linked. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to bankrupt delete votes being unconvincing. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked sock. - see here[reply]

• Comment: Funny, I don't see a single Delete vote here; the consensus among experienced editors is running heavily to merge-and-redirect. Would you like to try again? Ravenswing 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Much easier on the eyes too having them on separate pages. I could accept a merge though until the event is held. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly notable, major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.227.216 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Mtking ^(edits) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep expected to have the UFC's Featherweight championship defended^[1], and it's the first UFC event in Alberta. It's a major event, clearly notable and covered my major news outlets. Teamsleep (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it received coverage at the time, in common with all sports events, but that coverage ends after the event is over, again in common with nearly all sports events, to be retained the article needs to show how this event is of lasting significance using sources from after the event. Mtking ^(edits) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, our guidelines are fairly clear on the matter: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable" from WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is for all intents and purposes a regular event in the UFC schedule and has no distinct notability on its own. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 05:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Featherweight championship is being decided during this event, a championship being decided is most certainly more than a "regular season game" in any other sport. 173.190.123.217 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — 173.190.123.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have more edits outside this topic than in, Dennis Brown. WP:DNB 173.190.123.217 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] shows two edits outside, five in this afd, no others. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being disingenuous, as when you first labeled me a sockpuppet I had one edit in this afd, two outside. Quit targeting me.WP:DNB AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DBQ WP:NOTSPA AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are editing while logged in, the ip above is not logged in. Please pick one way to participate in a discussion, not two, to avoid confusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the original edit, this account did not exist thus it could not be logged in. I just created it today, as to avoid further accusations of sockpuppetry. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • No one accused you of sockpuppeting. SPA = Single Purpose Account, not sockpuppet. If someone thought you were a sockpuppet, you would have been reported at WP:SPI, instead of tagged WP:SPA. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that SPA tag was unfairly applied. As the timeline shows, I had two prior edits from 2011 totally unrelated to UFC 149, then 1 edit in this afD for 2012 and you immediately stick a SPA label on me. For one edit on the topic at hand??? Very unfair of you to do so. Goes to the claim that a few involved with this afD are ganging up and bullying those who dissent with their opinion on the matter. AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is exactly what a SPA is; you might have noted the "few or no other edits" line. Fifty unrelated edits from last month, no one would have batted an eye; two from last year? Ahem. Demonstrably you are not a regular editor who wanted to make your opinion here known, but someone who was brought in solely for the purpose of padding a vote count. That is not merely a violation of the rules, but one which can result in blocking of the offending/responsible users. With over half a dozen Sherdoggers indefinitely blocked for their various chicaneries, I surely hope that sooner or later they'll get the message that like MMA, Wikipedia has rules. Ravenswing 17:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Demonstrably", as in clearly and undeniably, brought in to pad a vote count? I deny it, before hurling such accusations you should be able to prove otherwise. Who "brought me in"? Seems as though you, especially being an administrator, would know better. WP:DNB And I ask, why all this personalized attention on one editor of this topic? Shouldn't we be discussing the issue at hand and not myself? I wonder if you would hold these same views if article concerned the NHL championship instead of the UFC Featherweight championship? AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ravenswing is not an administrator. You should check Wikipedia:List of administrators or their page before assuming any editor is. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis, that's good to know. Ravenwing's veiled banning threat is more proof of the bullying tactics being utilized by those who seek these UFC article deletions. AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, you were the one who started discussion of your SPA status; that you're now uncomfortable with the predictable results is unsurprising.

As far as my views go? Well, quite aside from that according to Google News, news hits for the Stanley Cup championships outnumber those for the UFC featherweight title nearly ten thousand to one, in point of fact, we cover the annual playoffs in omnibus articles much as is being done with the MMA omnibus articles: all fifteen playoff series, 80-90 games - one article. Ravenswing 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't the one that started discussion of my SPA status, Dennis was when he marked me such. By your remarks I see you cannot "demonstrably" prove anything, only hurls insinuations and target me personally. Noted.

This discussion has nothing to do with the omnibus article. This is a discussion on the afD for UFC 149. Please stay on topic.

Plus, is Google News the benchmark for WP:GNG now? Someone should alter the Wikipedia standards to show this recent change. Not to mention the fact that a quick search of Google News for "Stanley Cup" only return 5,840 results, making your claim of "10,000 to one" patently false.AugustWest1980 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Google news isn't a reliable source, it is an aggregate service. Some of the links it returns are reliable, some are garbage, but how many ghits it has is completely meaningless in a discussion. See WP:GHITS. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case then why then are there no sources demonstrating the lasting effect of this event, you assertion is not backed up by what can be found. Mtking ^(edits) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion, that a championship being decided makes an event more than just a "regular season game", is common sense and correct by definition. During "regular season games" championships are not decided. Source? Look up the definition of "championship". Post-event the championship will be forever on record and will be sourced in every journal or publication dedicated to the sport and many dedicated to sports in general. 173.190.123.217 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there's no lasting effect doesn't make it so. Especially with an event that hasn't happened yet. It's simply absurd to claim that there are no sources demonstrating the lasting effect of the event. Can anybody provide sources that demonstrate the lasting effect of the 2012 US presidential election? Of course not, we don't know what the lasting effect is because it hasn't happened yet. That hasn't been tagged for deletion though.69.120.36.222 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — 69.120.36.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown (talk)[reply]

That's because my IP changes frequently. Which is why I made this account today. I've contributed to a few other pages, over the past couple years including the John Basilone page and a couple psychology pages.Kevthefrog (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I read about this discussion over on the MMA fighting forums. I thought this nomination was an April Fools Joke? So, keep and tag as humourous! :) --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Pro Elite Fan Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked Sock.[reply]
• Comment. To add to the discussion and support keeping this article, I would like to point out Wiki policies WP:POTENTIAL WP:CHANCE WP:DONOTDEMOLISH As far as the WP:GNG assertion, I contend that the inclusion of numerous reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of this event qualify this article for inclusion as a stand-alone piece. These sources, such as ESPN, NBC, The Calgary Sun, etc. are in no way associated with the UFC or MMA in general, thus they are independent of the subject. Meeting all these requirements, I fail to see how this article can be deleted under WP:GNG. In fact, it seems to me that the main editors pushing for this article to be deleted are WP:OVERZEALOUS.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Those links to which you refer are not Wikipedia policies. They're essays expressing the opinions of the writers, and have zero policy force or authority. (This is part of the reason why being a knowledgeable editor is useful in these discussions.)

  As far as the policies under which deletion is pertinent, WP:ROUTINE is one, which explicitly debars routine sports coverage. The GNG is another, which you are misreading; it requires reliable, published sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail."

  Of the reliable sources listed in this article, the National Post, Vancouver Sun and ESPN cites aren't about this event, but about UFC's plans in Canada generally. The Calgary Herald cite is about the event ... and gives it a third as much column inches as the article about the Calgary Flames hockey game against Colorado the previous night, an event that needless to say did not merit its own article; it's covered in the omnibus 2011–12 Calgary Flames season. The Toronto Sun article is a survey about the UFC featherweight division. Ravenswing 20:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I see, just like the essay WP:MMAEVENT that has been repeated ad nauseum as reason for deletion?AugustWest1980 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:Snow.  :) Happy Passover and Easter! --131.123.122.38 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Note : Blocked IP of banned editor. [reply]
• Keep we all know there's going to be an article on this anyway so why bother deleting it if it's just going to be recreated? Cagoul (talk) 03:27, 7 April 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.