Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 2

: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 no consensus. When you have editors both arguing to Keep and Delete with the same rationale (i.e. WP:SPORTSEVENT) it is clear that the relevance of this type of event to the guideline needs to be re-assessed Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[UFC 2]]=

:{{la|UFC 2}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|UFC 2}})

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Would you give it up already? This has been tried over and over again, and every time the consensus is the same: leave the articles alone. They're much easier to track with the format we currently have. Surely they're more important than "America's Next Top Model" - eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.43.96 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Keep per JJB. Nominator must also note the existence of my vote on all the AfDs or else.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - No claim is made in the article to any enduring notability (WP:NOT), the results section of the article is not sourced to what you can call reliable sources. In answer to JJB failing WP:NOT or WP:EVENT is reason to delete, have no issue to userfication (or to the MMA project space) to allow for a merge if reliable sources can be found on it. Mtking (edits) 03:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nomination. Simple as that. Gamezero05 05:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Objection to NAC. NAC appeared to go based on vote countang and not considering the policy reasons for alternative closures. Request for Administrator evaluation of closure. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:Comment There was nothing stated by editor who made the NAC which would implicitly or explicitly imply it was based on vote counting alone. Several policy reasons for Keep were given in this discussion. BearMan998 (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:Close, with agreement. Well, your right, there were several policies. Would anyone have an objection if I close the article as Keep. My edit summary may have implied it, but I did look through the policies. Any objections, state below. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

::Objection. There has been debate as to how we should close this and it was requested that an admin close it. Is 12 hours the time frame we're using for Consensus changing? Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:Hi, where is the 'debate'? Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:Close as keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Should have been speedy kept long ago. Gamezero05 17:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:Close as keep This does in fact appear to be a WP:POINT nomination out of pure frustration on the part of the nominator. BearMan998 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete: There is barely a single reference, which doesn't provide significant coverage, and the lack of multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that provide making analytic or evaluative claims about the event makes it doubtful that this UFC event even passes the WP:GNG. Even if it had more sources, all it has is sports/routine coverage, so the article still falls into what Wikipedia is not. In its current state, it is at best a news report or a dictionary entry since it focuses on the results, merely routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect.
    I don't see any evidence that to presume that this event is notable since it has not received significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time in multiple reliable sources. Whatever coverage this UFC event had, is significantly less than any football week or any boxing event (which would be closer to MMA) at the time, so it wasn't very widely covered in diverse sources to presume notability. As stated in WP:SPORTSEVENT, articles about notable games/events should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. This article doesn't have such prose and there is no evidence that there are independent reliable sources, outside routine coverage, that could provide significant information besides the resutls. With no sanctioning body or a league, I do not think that it fits the exception criterion described at WP:SPORTSEVENT.
    I do not see keep arguments that cite a relevant Wikipedia policy to indicate that the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, so I think that the article should not be kept. I would not favor a merge because most information is unsourced, but a redirect would be okay if there was a viable target. As there is currently no target and the information is mostly unsourced, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

::A dictionary entry? No. It (1) is more than definition, (2) is about an event and (3) is not a ussage, slang, and/or idiom guide.--Jahalive (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - Possibly this should be merged into to a yearly or other summary article, but that should be determined in a single focussed discussion, not through dozens of individual deletion discussions. "Unsourced" is not a valid reason for deletion. The requirements are: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes" or "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." That is not the case with this article.--Jahalive (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was fine to begin with since it documented an historic event. Still, I have added some more prose to the article as well as 5 or 6 more references.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of your references did not qualify under Independent Reliable sources. Please see how I went through and moved some of the links around (including moving the ref's IMDB to his page). Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and fixed that for him. BearMan998 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and Close, per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Cavarrone (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

: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.