Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There seems a rough consensus that the subject meets the notability criteria for events and the general notability guideline. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 145

[edit]
UFC 145 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability. The event last month has only received routine coverage that all sports events get in the day or two after then event and prior to the event again the sources are just routine coverage of who may (or may not) appear mainly in MMA specialist websources. The only prose in the article is limited to 3 lines about the event build up, nothing on the actual event. Mtking (edits) 04:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on which part of WP:NOT this article fails? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I can't believe what I am reading! People are actually pushing for the deletion of most or all UFC articles when in fact they are often the only sources that contain a wide variety of information about events that cannot be found anywhere else online! Based on the fact that fights affect future fights, events (whose pages are claimed by many biased users to be subject to deletion based on policy) form an interconnected web that has a growing place and influence in sports and even economic implications, not to mention effects on the participants' popularity and lives and the worldwide presence of MMA's fan base, which is increasing in size and area faster than that of any major sport. I am strongly taken aback by this irresponsible, inconsiderate and unprofessional movement to delete these web pages! Carfreak555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.220.171 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Routine report of a routine sporting event. WP isn't The Sporting News. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't have articles about every fight and every sporting event that takes place. This fight doesn't seem to be particularly unusual or notable.Sionk (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This "fight" is actually an event, comprising twelve fights, one of which is for the UFC Light Heavyweight Title (roughly akin to a Stanley Cup or Superbowl Championship). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may find WP:EFFORT helpful in explaining why that is not a reason to keep an article. Mtking (edits) 08:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a single fight, it was an event with 12 different fights with ramifications in six different weight classes, including a Light-Heavyweight World Title fight that was the culmination of one of the biggest feuds in the sport. It received coverage months in advance, and it's also available for purchase as a standalone DVD (http://www.amazon.com/UFC-145-Jones-vs-Evans/dp/B007VYEBAS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338025744&sr=8-1), which is generally pretty indicative of enduring notability beyond routine sporting events. Beansy (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This event does not fail WP:EVENT. Jon Jones retaining the title was a catalyst in setting up UFC 151: Jones vs Henderson. Other wins and losses affect other future matchmaking, passing WP:EFFECT. WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH are easily passed (though this currently isn't demonstrated as clearly as it could be). WP:PERSISTENCE is demonstrated in pre-fight analysis of fights stemming from UFC 145 fights, but can not be demonstrated until that analysis is written. WP:DIVERSE is unclear. The article has references from three unique reliable sources; how many would you prefer? WP:ROUTINE does not apply. These are not like hockey or baseball games, which occur 82 (or so) per season per team. There are about 20 UFC shows per year and they are scheduled dynamically, depending on rankings, fighter popularity, injuries and feuds (all of which result from previous events). I hope that's enough policy for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I voted delete because I only see one source which could be called independent, reliable and indepth - Yahoo Sports News. I don't see any guidelines which say sports events can by-pass notability requirements. If other WP:IRS exist they need to be added to the article. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with MMAJunkie.com or MMAMania.com? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MMAjunkie is notable enough for its own article, but not to use sources from. Portillo (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination has been advertised as being disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). Merge is possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep if improved, otherwise delete (How's that for a screwed up !vote? :) The article in it's current state, with no other research is a delete. It contains only routine information about fight results and changes to the fight card. The article contains no well-sourced prose discussing the notable aspects of the event as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article currently cites only a single non-MMA related source which on the face is a borderline failing of WP:GNG. That said, it appears there are more non-MMA related sources that could be cited. Since the event included a championship event, this event could pass the SNG I've accepted at WP:MMANOT (though that discussion isn't really going anywhere at the moment) if it included more sources and more prose. I'm willing to help write that prose as I did for UFC 140 during it's AfD if the !votes suggest that it won't be an easy delete. Therefore, with those improvements, which I'm willing to help out with, keep. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable, TreyGeek. Though I wish WP:MMANOT would stop being referred to as if it carried actual authority. It is an essay, with mere advice InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IT HAD A FLIPPIN TITLE FIHT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.39 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a. UFC is not a league, b. it has about one championship event every three weeks not the one a year envisaged by the guideline and c. where are the secondary sources that establish that having such a fight makes the event notable. Mtking

(edits) 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the UFC is a league and is the top league in MMA today. Additionally, championships for each weight class are not defended every 3 weeks, instead they defended closer to the 1 year time frame like you just stated. BearMan998 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This only shows how Mtking has no idea on what is UFC or MMA.Evenfiel (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mtking (edits) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero05 07:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the general notability guideline's requirement is that secondary sources exist, then this article meets that requirement. Now. Not in two years. There is no need to find a secondary source that explicitly states "UFC 146 is notable enough for Wikipedia". That burden of proof would be unfairly heavy. The diversity of the indepth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources speaks for itself in establishing notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Event has received plenty of coverage by the media, fighters also have received plenty of coverage. If is was a single main fight it would be notable enough due to the coverage alone. However, being a full event I see no reason to delete since it doesn't fail notability. --Loukinho (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Article needs improvement but otherwise passes WP:GNG. Disagree that article fails WP:EVENT given the fact that there was (apparently) a championship bout featuring one of the (apparently) more notable fighters in the sport. None but shining hours (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree that work is to be done on the article, but AfD is not for clean up. And per above, it does pass WP:EVENT. It also clearly passes WP:GNG →TSU tp* 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the actual sources of some of the references provided, including the LA Times, NY Post and USA Today pretty much makes the notability of this event an open and shut thing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Of course there is coverage in the sports section of mainstream press, but if you look at those sources they are just the routine coverage of a spots news event, for example every ALF, NFL, MLB, Soccer or MBA game would get just as as much coverage if not more, what is missing here is any claim to why the event is of enduring notability and not just one in a long line of routine sports events. Mtking (edits) 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any sports events at all would pass your twisted idea of "enduring notability". By using your logic, no Super Bowl is notable since a Super Bowl happens every single year. It gets the routine coverage all Super Bowls get. The only Super Bowl in recent memory that could pass your definition of "enduring notability" is the Super Bowl in Houston a few years back when Janet Jackson had a "wardrobe malfunction" when her boob was shown on national television. Your definition of enduring notability is ridiculous. Gamezero05 07:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While Mtking wishes to spout off about this event's lack of (enduring) notability, s/he conveniently ignores any source that may disprove his/her point. The Globe and Mail had at least three in-depth articles about individual fights leading up to the event ([1], [2], [3]), while the Telegraph had at least two articles about the rivaly in the main event ([4], [5]). Such articles cannot be considered simply routine. Does this prove enduring notability? Perhaps not. But it is very difficult to find sources that would indicate that, for instance, the 1991 Monte Carlo Open or even America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 has any enduring notability. But, as per Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not temporary, and I quote: "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" (emphasis mine). The fact remains that this was one of the major events run by the world's leading mixed martial arts organisation, which included a championship fight. I can understand perhaps relegating UFC on Fox events (and their like) to secondary, not-individually-notable status, but Mtking has gone way too far in his/her fanatical dislike for anything related to the UFC. Physcher (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are still just routine sports reports, the same sort of stuff that is published ahead of any sports game, take a look at Fox Sports and you will see they publish numinous articles in the run-up to AFL games each week, it's what you expect, nothing unusual happened at this event, there were some fights, some winners and some looses and on to the next one. If I am guilty of anything it is not wanting to see the project turned into a sports result service, it is not, it never has been and we have a policy to that effect. If you want fanatical then have a read of your colleagues at Sherdog Forums. Mtking (edits) 09:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to put this in bold italic underlined caps with four exclamation marks, but I'll just calmly repeat it. NHL/AFL/NBA/etc games are prescheduled before the season starts. The results of Game 12 have no effect on who plays who in Game 13. Or Game 82. If the Oilers lose 79 games, they still may face league leaders. In UFC, losing or winning is much more serious. Two or three wins can turn a "nobody" into a title contender while two or three losses can turn a contender unemployed. You say "UFC is not a league" when it suits you and make comparisons to "similar" league sports otherwise. The only valid argument for deletion was a lack of sourced descriptive text, which has been addressed (Good work, by the way!). Can we please not do this again for UFC 147? Typing on a PS3 is hard work! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 3 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_145&oldid=1090454236"