Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night

: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 The result was delete. The delete camp makes a policy-based argument based on WP:NOT that I have to allocate substantial weight to in comparison to the keep side, which relies only on notability. Notability does not guarantee that an article should be kept, it only establishes minimum eligibility.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[UFC Ultimate Fight Night]]=

:{{la|UFC Ultimate Fight Night}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_Ultimate_Fight_Night Stats])

:({{Find sources|UFC Ultimate Fight Night}})

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are primary news sources of the routine type any sports event gets that NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". There is no analysis in any of the sources of why the event is in any way encyclopedic. Mt king ^(edits) 20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

*Keep and advise topic ban for nominator who is woefully ignorant of MMA as he just copy and pastes the same dishonest boilerplate delete vote across every MMA related article he can find. I don't know if he bombed out in his MMA debut or what, but clearly he's trolling the MMA articles. The article concerns an event that is notable for many reasons: Nate Quarry was the first TUF participant to earn an UFC title shot.[http://www.mmamania.com/2012/2/22/2817662/nate-quarry-talks-mma-uncensored-live-and-the-next-stage-of-his-career Nate Quarry talks MMA Uncensored Live and the next stage of his career] by Brian Hemminger (mmamania.com) on Feb 22, 2012 Nate Marquardt made his UFC debut and was later tested positive for nandrolone.[http://mmafrenzy.com/27660/nate-marquardt-signs-with-strikeforce-likely-to-face-tyron-woodley-for-welterweight-title/ Nate Marquardt Signs With Strikeforce, Likely to Face Tyron Woodley for Welterweight Title] by Bryan Robison (mmafrenzy.com) on Feb 21, 2012 It was the second-ever UFC event on free television,{{cite web|url=http://www.ivansblog.com/2005/08/mixed-martial-arts-second-ever-mma.html|title=Monday, August 08, 2005|date=2005-08-08|accessdate=2012-10-27|publisher=Ivan's Blog|last=Trembow|first=Ivan}} with the telecast drawing a 1.5 overall rating in the United States.{{cite web|url=http://www.ivansblog.com/2005/08/mixed-martial-arts-ultimate-fight.html|title=Ultimate Fight Night Draws a 1.5 Rating, Topping NFL Pre-Season Football and X-Games|publisher=Ivan's Blog|work=MMAWeekly.com|date=2005-08-10|accessdate=2012-10-27|last=Trembow|first=Ivan}}{{cite web|url=http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Ultimate-Fight-Night-No-1-Saturday-Night-3225|title="Ultimate Fight Night" No. 1 Saturday Night|publisher=Sherdog.com|date=2005-08-09|accessdate=2012-10-27|last=Gross|first=Josh}} Now perhaps the most laughable part of the nomination is to say that the event is not encyclopedic. For Christ's sake, it appears in multiple published print encyclopedias: [http://www.amazon.com/UFC-Encyclopedia-Thomas-Gerbasi/dp/0756683610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351432703&sr=8-1&keywords=UFC+Encyclopedia], [http://www.amazon.com/The-MMA-Encyclopedia-Jonathan-Snowden/dp/1550229230/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351432703&sr=8-2&keywords=UFC+Encyclopedia],etc. What is encyclopedic for multiple printed encyclopedias is certainly encyclopedic for the ultimate paperless encyclopedia. Finally, even in the worst case scenario the nominator offers no reason why the article could not be merged and redirected. Who are we protecting that we would have to red link this article, but keep a discussion about it? Oh, and it is also an insult to these notable fighters to denigrate them and defame them as "non notable". You should be ashamed!! --172.162.38.35 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.162.38.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A172.162.38.35 Blocked] for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:: Let me deal with each of those links one by one and demonstrate why they do not help demonstrate why this event meets WP Policy :

::: The mmamania.com link does not discuss the event, it mentions the event in passing.

::: The mmafrenzy.com link likewise only mentions the event in passing.

::: The two Ivan's Blog's links are firstly from Blogs which WP routinely does not consider as RS, and secondly the title of the blog says it all "Featuring Ivan Trembow's Self-Important, Random Rants on Mixed Martial Arts, Video Games, Pro Wrestling, Television, Politics, Sports, and High-Quality Wool Socks", not what anyone could call a respected publication.

::: The sherdog link is a very good example of what NOTNEWSPAPER calls "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".

::: of the two "published print encyclopedias" one is written by the UFC Editorial Director and is not therefore interdependent, the other "The MMA Encyclopedia" appears to "detail the results of every MMA fight in history" in probably the same way that [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yTz6B1dI4goC&q=new+york+giants+pride&dq=new+york+giants+pride&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WnqNUNLuGc33mAWvoYGQCA&redir_esc=y New York Giants Pride] details every game in the New York Giants 2007 season but that does not make each and every game of that season notable enough for a WP entry nor does the The MMA Encyclopedia make every MMA fight or event notable.

:: Mt king ^(edits) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Ivan's Blog archived every MMAWeekly post. MMAWeekly is the second best MMA website. Look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hateless#Hi here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skeletor2112/Archive_1#response_from_Ivan_Trembow here]. Or ask Ivan Trembow himself.--LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

::::Now you are just trolling us... You are really dismissing multiple printed books and specifically encyclopedias as not indicative of encyclopedic content?! WTF?! By what backwards anti-logic does it make sense that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night is a blue link and UFC Ultimate Fight Night is a red link? Who on earth does it benefit to keep for public consumption a useless discussion about something, but to get rid of content that is covered in printed encyclopedias, concerns the first televised event of this name, featured major fighters, was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, went on to spawn many follow up events due to its success, influenced the careers of the participants, the network, and the UFC?! Moreover, these events are not just covered in MMA specific sites. See [http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/UFC+Fight+Night here] as USA Today and other national newspapers that are not MMA specific cover these evnts in detail. The fact that you are seriously saying to redlink rather than even merge and redirect is just mind-boggling. We delete jibberish and defamatory stuff. Can we verify the contents of this article? Yes! Is the article jibberish? No. Is the article racist, sexist, etc.? No. Does it concern a televised event? Yes. Was the event from a major promotion with major fighters? Yes and yes. Is the event covered in non-MMA specific sources? Yes, such as USA Today. Is the event's subject matter encyclopedic? Yes, as it is featured in at least two printed encyclopedias available through major retailers. You frankly have no real argument for red linking and it is borderline offensive to waste our time in this manner. --172.129.97.239 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.129.97.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::::: I have no doubt as a sporting event this received lots of coverage in lots of mainstream publications but WP classifies that sort of coverage of sports events as routine (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), that includes such sources that "detail the results of every MMA fight in history" (the MMA Encyclopedia), in order to demonstrate that this article should be in Wikipedia it needs to be demonstrated that it does not fail the WP:NOT policy. Again at the risk of repeating myself, Wikipedia "is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service" (taken from WP:EVENT) and it goes on and says "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article". What is needed here is not the routine sports announcements and results, but sources that detail why this event was significant and what lasting effect it had. If you actually read the article as it exist now, there is not even an un-sourced claim to any significance, all that exists is four lines of text, the results and details of performers wages, so any claim to any lasting significance is not actually reflected in the article. Mt king ^(edits) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep — Event is notable, first UFN, second-ever free UFC show, etc. It passes WP:GNG and WP:MMAEVENT.
LlamaAl (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

:: Saying it is notable does not make it so, every professional sports game/match/meet/event gets enough routine coverage in the press to pass WP:GNG, however that does not make the event worthy of encyclopedic note. The sources provided do not demonstrate what sets this event up over the countless other sporting events that happened that Saturday in the rest of the US or world. Mt king ^(edits) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Saying it is not notable does not make it so. This event is notable because it is the first Ultimate Fight NIGHT, the second-ever free show, is from the largest and most significant MMA organziation in the world, featured fights by major athletes, is covered in multiple reliable sources for these reasons, which means if you actually read the sources, it clearly passes the WP:GNG per WP:SENSE. A once in a blue moon televised event and the first one of its kind is simply not analogous to weekly sporting events. We are not talking about the NFL which has multiple teams compete every week during a season. We are talking about the first ever televised event of a league that does not have multiple events a day like the NFL, MLB, NBL et al do. You are comparing apples to watermellons!! --172.129.97.239 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

:::: My issue is that the article and subject fails the policy on what is and what is not included on WP, just having enough routine coverage to pass WP:GNG is not a guarantee of a subjects sutability for inclusion as is made clear on the WP:N page when it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.." (my bold), this nomination is based solely on the fact this article fails that "What Wikipedia is not" policy as it does not demonstrate what significance it had outside of those directly involved. Mt king ^(edits) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::Nothing is significant to those uninvolved. Anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

*Over the weekend, I saw the excellent film Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (don't take my word for it, just see it yourself!) and so was feeling pretty good until I stumbled upon this farce here! :( As such, yeah, I agree with a speedy keep of the article and emergency topic ban of Mtking from MMA related AfDs per LlamaA1. --BStudent0 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — BStudent0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block-evading sock of Special:Contributions/63.3.19.129 and sock-puppet of User:Mdtemp (school) as well. See SPI. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

*Keep .. Per all above. Miufus (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Sock-puppet of LlamaAl; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep Meets GNG what more is there to discuss. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep per everything above. Longterm significance is adequately illustrated in this later review [http://www.411mania.com/MMA/video_reviews/140065/Simply-MMA:-UFC---Ultimate-Fight-Night-.htm 411mania review]. (First of many, Salaverry's last hurrah). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:: 411mania is a collection of unpaid blogers (see [http://www.411mania.com/about_us here]) and is not a reliable source. Mt king ^(edits) 07:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

==References==

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Sources in article don't seem to satisfy requirements of in depth coverage or don't appear independent and reliable. --No unique names 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep due to in depth coverage in reliable published sources noting the long-term significance of the event and its notability to the sport. I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_Ultimate_Fight_Night&diff=520795624&oldid=520285199 updated] the article accordingly, but based on a source suggested in the discussion above, I found that in a published book, an encyclopedia, no less, the main event is considered "one of the worst fights of all time". An event that features an "of all time" kind of fight as mentioned not on a mere blog, but in published book is by definition notable. The fact that it is described as such in a print encyclopedia is by definition an example of being encyclopedic. I think someone above does make a further good point about how it does not make sense that it betters Wikipedia by redlinking UFC Ultimate Fight Night and keeping this discussion instead. That narrow-minded reading of our admittedly Byzantine and constantly evolving policies and guidelines would be like saying that [http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/605603-resident-evil-6/64225959 this discussion] serves more relevant purpose to the world than keeping Resident Evil 6 for public consumption. It would be like saying that this aforementioned game has received the same routine coverage that any new game in that franchise gets from video game sites, etc., while ignoring that it is also covered in publications that may not have articles readily available online. Given the significance of the UFC, their events are also covered in print magazines and journalism that might not always show up on a Google search, which for anything, whether it be video games or sporting events a lot of times might turn up mostly blogs and the like in the first pages of results, but that does not mean that the sources do not exist. And nor does it mean that the game or major event is not important. The first televised program of the world's leading promotion is inherently notable. It was watched by thousands of people internationally. Because star fighters competed, it is still discussed discussed in articles about these fighters' careers as it has undeniably influenced their careers, just as it is historically important for the world's leading MMA promotion. Again, the information is clearly verifiable and so just as in the case of Resident Evil 6, I do not see how we benefit civilization by getting rid of a factually verifiable article concerning a televised event from the world main MMA promotion on which fighters who competed for championships participated, but we would instead preserve for posterity a discussion about that article thereby taking up even more harddrive space than something that is at least useful to someone?! Honestly, it just does not make any sense. --Morphed Editor (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Sock of User:A Nobody Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:SNOW. This event is clearly notable as supported by numerous reliable sources. The nominators repeated attacks on others in this discussions just reveals his desperation and fanaticism. Moreover, his comments are flat out lies and no matter how many times he repeats the lie it doesn't make it false. Also, I don't get what's with striking comments? If this is a discussion and not a vote as it says up top, then it matters not how many bold faced deletes or keeps there are. The struck comments all appear to be factually accurate versus the dishonest comments of the nominator. Shouldn't it be much more important that we go with what is true than just trying to silence some people you do not like? --Jeremy Edited Today (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

::Sock of Bstudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Pretty amusing that this is starting back up again given how miserably it failed last time. These articles which are part of a complete set (linked to player bio's, relevance to other events, etc) are better ref'ed than most in sports yet continue to be the target of a motivated editor. Afd's not in whole (since that would obviously fail), but piecemeal, which obviously ruins the value of the whole; but who's counting since the decisions are made by folks who have limited knowledge of the topic at hand and seem to completely ignore well-reasoned rational arguments. Agent00f (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - the article still has a relevant assertion of WP:EFFECT: a title shot for one of the highest titles of the organization was given and Marquardt (current Strikeforce welterweight champion and former UFC middleweight title challenger) debuted in the UFC. Poison Whiskey (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Rather than reply to each, this is a reply to all those saying passes GNG (or other guideline or essay), please re-read the nomination, this is not about does the article pass the GNG, if you read of the whole of WP:Notability (which is the page WP:GNG redirects to) you will see that the second paragraph says "

::A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not (my bold).

: This nomination is based on the fact this article is excluded under WP:NOT policy and specifically "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed" and "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.", and in order to show that this sports event is worthy Encyclopedic note, those advocating for its retention need to show that it has received significant coverage of the event outside of routine reporting of event and its results in reliable and diverse sources, to date that has not been done. Mt king ^(edits) 23:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - UFC Ultimate Fight Night is multiple events over time,[http://www.suntimes.com/sports/boxing/7108335-419/reported-fox-deal-would-bring-ufc-to-network-tv.html] originating as early as July 6, 2005.[http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2005/07/06/spike-tv-highlights-august-2005--18661/20050706spiketv01/] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_Ultimate_Fight_Night&oldid=521059776 The Wikipedia article] is a Wikipedia:Coatrack discussing a mixed martial arts event on August 6, 2005 that does not meet WP:GNG. Given the high level of sock involvement, its better to delete until someone comes along and posts an article on UFC Ultimate Fight Night that meets Wikipedia core content policies. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:Keep - The above statement is incorrect, "UFC Fight Night" was a series of events, they are not the same as the "UFC on FOX" events for example. The issue of WP:GNG is not supported given the circumstances of previous editors illustrating notability, and while the sock involvement is unfortunate (and accurate) a poisoned apple does not destroy the vine and the vine in this case is not poisoned. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:: Your assertion that notability have illustrated it is not correct, all that exists either here or on the article are links to results, blogs, or pages that mention the event, please post what you think are sources that show non-routine significant coverage of the event. Mt king ^(edits) 08:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:Keep - Welcome back! I missed the drama you caused last time you were on a crusade, and I'm happy to see that you are back. I have something to entertain me again. So... This is my vote, and this is not a democracy, so I can vote regardless. Mazter00 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
'Keep I believe in the integrity of wikipedia being an objective encyclopedia, and Fight Night is notable enough in the sports world. Let's not rehash arguments months old, only to have the same result. Deleting pages without retaining information and hiding behind wikipedia guidelines (not rules) will only further harm wikipediaAutokid15 (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment For anyone not familiar with the _history_ of these deletions, nominator/user MtKing above has been _specifically_ nominating MMA entries to be deleted for an entire year now to approx zero effect. It's been nothing but an atrocious waste of time on everyone's behalf (dozens and dozens of editors) and a blemish on wiki's record for this joke to be allowed to continue. If anything, its only merit is a study of the bureaucratic politics that's the bane of the site's inner circles. Agent00f (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - definitely not routine coverage. See sources above. Nom is an anti-MMA editor who should be ignored (again, as per above). Paralympiakos (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 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.