Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 3

Archiving

Do you think we could archive some stuff? Everything before this notability discussion is well moot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving is set up to archive threads in which no responses have been made in 672 hours (28 days). That is somewhat shorter than normal, but appears to work out just fine. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is probably about right for this page. There is a lot of discussion, but there is a lot going on right now. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I can live with it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream coverage of Bellator

Removed duplicate posting from Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships by same IP address Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of MMA Events

Due to the large volume of UFC articles that have been proposed for deletion I think it is time that we discuss what makes a mixed martial arts event notable. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142 a set of guidelines outlining notability would be ideal in order to promote a consistant guidelines for AfDs. There are a few questions that need to be addressed immediately:

• Are UFC events inherently notable?
• Are top tier MMA organization events per WP:MMANOT inherently notable?
• What would make any MMA event notable?

I have a set of criteria I would like to see introduced. I want to see Wikipedia contain comprehensive and consistent coverage for the events that have lasting significance for the sport; sometimes, that effect is hard to see in the short term. Fortunately the UFC already has a method of sorting it's events; currently there are four types: numbered UFC events, UFC events on FOX, UFC events on FX and UFC events on FUEL TV. Immediately, A simple way to have consistent coverage of the most important events (as decided by the UFC) would be to grant all numbered UFC events notability. An argument against this would be to say 'just because the UFC says it's important doesn't make it notable'. This argument makes an assumption that is false, that the UFC has complete control on numbered events. It is actually the consumer, who purchases MMA events via pay-per-view, that decides that notability. Recently the UFC had a proposed numbered event in Montreal that had to be cancelled. Why? Because they could not find large enough fights to merit the notability of a numbered event. By making all numbered UFC events notable we can allow a Wikipedia viewer to browse through the events with an appealing consistency. Another way to confirm notability would be for an event to have a title fight. These fights represent a contest to decide the top fighter in their respective organizations, and have lasting historic effects for the sport and the company. Obviously, all organizations are not created equal, therefore it would be fair to grant notability to title fights in top tier organizations as per WP:MMANOT. A final objective way to determine notability would be for an event to contain a certain number of top ranked fighters. A discussion is required in order to decide what source(s) could establish top ranked fighters. ESPN is a good source because they poll different reporters, for the same reason SB Nations MMA rankings are also favorable due to their large number of sources (including reporters, websites and public opinion). The number of top ranked fighters that an event needs to be notable is difficult to pin down. For these initial guidelines I will arbitrarily say four top-ranked fighters will need to be involved in an event to establish notability. This number and the method of determining a definition for 'top-ranked' will need to be discussed. In sum, my advised guidelines for notability of MMA events are:

1. Any numbered UFC event
2. Any event for a top tier organization that contains a title fight
3. Any event that contains four top ranked fighters (discussion needed)

--Pat ^talk 16:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

USA Today/SB Nation Rankings would be a good toll to use http://www.bloodyelbow.com/rankings Fraggy1 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Before we get into the exact wording we need some examples of events which pass the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE test and then demonstrate that what ever set of words are framed they reflect reality otherwise the community won't accept this as a creditable guideline. Mtking ^(edits) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that you have been the main voice against MMA events notability. This discussion is an attempt to clarify exactly what the community deems as notable. I would really appreciate your input on the questions I put forward, as well as the notability guidelines I have outlined. The AfD results are asking for a specific definition of MMA event notability and I find putting forward more AfDs extremely useless (due to the circular nature of this method). However I would like to ask, respectfully, for you to try not to monopolize this conversation. --Pat ^talk 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good on ya both. This looks like progress. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is the real bugger. Details of what happened during the event do continue to be discussed, even though the event as a whole does not. Does that satisfy the guideline? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Going back to Pat's guidelines:

1. Any numbered UFC event These are broadcast all over the world by media companies such as ESPN (UK and Ireland), Rede Globo (Brazil), Rogers Sportsnet (Canada), Sky Italia (Italy), Fox Latin America I could go and they should be included.

2. Any event for a top tier organization that contains a title fight I think this should be limited to Zuffa owneed promotions due to the fact the vast majority of top fighters are under ex clusive with either the UFC or Strikeforce

'3. Any event that contains four top ranked fighters I think any four top 25 ranked fighters in the USA today poll would be a good enough indication of event notabilty. The USA today poll includes ESPN, Sherdog and a number of top MMA journalists and is the closets thing MMA has to rankings. Fraggy1 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to Pat's guidelines too: Perfect. I would support that. But, Mtking makes a good point. Considering such articles may still conflict with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and other guidelines, would community consensus be hard to achieve? The three groups you suggest would become exceptions to the guidelines. Wouldn't we have to show why? Next, international curling events could want the same. We need convincing rationale. Am I on the right track with my thinking here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP directly conflicts with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I would rather we tried to come up with a standard specific to MMA, as opposed to focusing on established rules. This may seem like I'm trying to avoid the rules, but it's more a case that the rules don't apply. For instance WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't apply to an MMA event because it's not a game or series, and WP:NSEASONS doesn't apply because an event is not a season. We are left to use WP:EVENT which leaves much to be desired in order to have a clear definition of notoriety for specific MMA events. --Pat ^talk 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Next, international curling events could want the same." Actually, International World Curling Championships do have their own unique pages, for Men's, Women's, and Mixed Doubles. In fact so do some of the more recent national championships for the U.S., Canada, and even Scotland. The 2012 Scottish Women's Curling Championship has less prose and more statistical information than almost any major MMA event page. Yes, that's still far fewer annual pages than the UFC, Strikeforce, and Bellator produce, but Curling is a sport a very tiny fraction the size of Mixed Martial Arts and gets zero mainstream press attention whatsoever outside of the Olympics, yet they are better represented in proportion to their fanbase than the top three MMA promotions are when it comes to annual Curling Championships versus major MMA-event pages. In fact, damn near all the arguments applied to MMA could be magnified many times over against wikipedia's representation of Curling. So that isn't an issue. At least, not until someone decides to try and get all the curling articles deleted. Beansy (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Being less lazy with what sources we use would help less MMA Junkie more USA today, ESPN, SI, TSN, etc Fraggy1 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

MMAJunkie, MMAFighting, and Sherdog all are much better, faster, and more comprehensive news sources for MMA than ESPN, SI, or TSN (Sherdog more for lesser events). In fact I believe Sherdog is CBS's official partner for sporting news and MMAFighting.com's Ariel Helwani has Fox Sports credentials now, among other MMA reporters who do so, but he still breaks far more news in interviews that appear on MMAFighting. What's more, USA Today, while it does have one MMA staff reporter, farms out its MMA meta-rankings to SBNation (USA Today's Sergio Non is one of about a dozen contributors to the monthly meta-rankings). There are lots of not-so-great MMA-specific news sources out there and lots of cut-and-paste sites too, but there are also some very well known MMA and very well respected MMA sites there. MixedMartialArts.com for instance, while importing most of its reported news from elsewhere (while giving credit), has news that pops up from its own forums, as posters who are verified MMA fighter and other MMA industry figures regularly post there, including Dana White himself. Really, there's nothing wrong with those sources. Sure, I regularly see completely banal op-eds, but as for the actual reporting and the factual accuracy, the leading MMA sites tend to be better sources than places like the Washington Post (and it pains me to say that since that was the newspaper I grew up on), where you might have a boxing writer who is only semi-knowledgeable about MMA doing occasional and less-than-comprehensive write-ups because he's ordered to instead of because he's a fan of the sport. I suppose more Associated Press articles as sources might be helpful though I guess...Beansy (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This could turn into a major push to hammer out some MMA guidelines. It's also on a pretty hidden page. Should we do something about that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC) And maybe we should consult some editors who are really, really experienced with policy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fraggy1, the use of less MMA centric sources is a very good idea. I don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE conflicting with WP:NTEMP, if your read them in conjunction with WP:ROUTINE. What is often overlooked is that just because every newspaper or website publishes an article on some event be it a crime, a party or in this case a sports result, it does not mean that is notable as a result of it being a news story of interest. Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although Beansy is correct in his assertion that a lot of the time MMAjunkie and MMAFighting are more reliable then mainstream coverage, both Mtking and Fraggy1 are correct in their assessment that more mainstream references are required. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NTEMP do contradict, as mentioned in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I suppose I'll quote it... "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." --Pat ^talk 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what we see here a burst or coverage in the MMA media following the announcement of the event then reporting on further card additions followed by a spike of coverage in mainstream media reporting the results then it drops to nothing. Mtking ^(edits) 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

True. And Pat does point out that "...coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established...", which somewhat mitigates it. So, can we add other considerations, including guidelines such as WP:GEOSCOPE that further mitigate WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and make a select group of top MMA events notable? Let's compromise here a bit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we deal with the issue that a lot of that coverage is just Wikipedia:ROUTINE in it's nature, reports on who is and who is not going to fight, much like the reports on who is and is not fit to be picked for a sports team for a match ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Routine says "Routine events such as sports matches" are not notable. A single UFC event has anywhere between nine and twelve single matches. In this regard, it is much more like a wrestling event than a single sports match. If wrestling events are notable, UFC events ought to be notable as well. Dominic (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC events are notable, watched by millions and is covered by mainstream media outlets. Who cares if the event doesnt have a long-lasting effect on society. This isnt the moon landing, its a sports event. It becomes a part of history, just like everything else. Portillo (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a unique case, and that should be a consideration, as Pat points out. As it's sort of an event and a sport at once, we mustn't be too rigid in observing guidelines -- guidelines which offer flexibility with terms like "probably" and "likely". Flexibility can win the day here. The whole MMA Wikiproject has a lot to gain if we can compromise a bit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because as an encyclopaedia we have rules, guidelines and policies on what information is deemed of encyclopaedic worth, for example WP:NOT and the subsection WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. Mtking ^(edits) 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(This is cross-posted from the UFC 146 AfD with some modifications.) Comment I hesitate to comment but I hope the "keepers" will take this as constructive suggestions and insight into the "deletionists" mentality. "Articles about notable [sporting events] should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Currently, most MMA event articles appear to contain only "routine news coverage of such things as [fight] announcements [and] sporting [results]". If MMA event articles (UFC or otherwise) included more prose discussing the significance of the event, the background of bouts and the fighters involved in them, what happened during the bouts, and any after effects of the event then "deletionists" will have less to argue from. As concrete examples of what I'm referring to look at UFC 94 and UFC 140 as articles that contain significant amounts of well-sourced prose that discuss all aspects of the event. If a particular event is notable, the article should explain why it is notable and nearly all MMA event articles fail to do so. If the significant issues about an event were discussed for more than a single sentence, it adds weight to outsiders (non-MMA viewing folks) that these may really be notable articles and will help support the "keepers" case during AfD. So the most important thing that should be done, in my opinion, is not constructing notability criteria for MMA events, but to actually improve the MMA event articles so that they are more likely to meet the existing guidelines and notability criteria. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that MMA events require better sources and more information. I'm simply trying to put forward specific criteria to help create consistency. I fear that TreyGeek and Mtking care more about removing articles than improving them. This mentality, along with a lack of specific guidelines, has led us into a position where major PPV events, with huge ramifications for the sport, are now up for deletion. I think we need to work together to try to improve Wikipedia, as opposed to grouping people as 'deleters' or 'keepers'. --Pat ^talk 03:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

With the work I put into writing up UFC 140 and what I could on the early background of UFC 147 in addition to writing up the initial version of 2012 in UFC events, 2012 in mixed martial arts events, and 2012 in Super Fight League I take offense to the suggestion that I don't care (or didn't care) about improving MMA event articles. Thanks for reminding me why I'm wanting to retire from the MMA WikiProject. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was completely wrong in that assertion. I hope you'll forgive me. I know you are actively working towards making pages better, as evident with the amount of time you put into the '2012 in UFC events' page. I was attempting to refer to each individual AfD that has come up, and apparent lack of effort by everyone (myself included) to include better references and provide more information. I'm trying to simply change the way we are approaching these pages. I was wrong to say that you don't care about improving the articles. I'm sorry. --Pat ^talk 03:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry if this is a little out of place as while most of this was written, two more nested exchanges above it were posted). Regarding User:TreyGeek's assertion on what would make for weightier MMA event articles, that seems to almost directly contradict WPNOTTHENEWSPAPER. And every major MMA event where things haven't gone perfectly (which is to say most of them) has had prose in a "Background" section. Could some of these be more fleshed out? Sure. But the actual match info is exactly what you would not find in a newspaper, ironically. Ever read an AP article about a UFC event? They don't even usually give a complete list of who was on the card, let alone full match results with times, rounds, method of victory, whether a competitor missed weight and by how much, whether they tested positive for a steroid test, or SAC-disclosed salaries. They have a very basic recap. This is where wikipedia comes in.

Wikipedia is a fabulous source of MMA nuts and bolts information in addition to prose on the background info, which is exactly what so many people come here for. Or at least it was. If full background information on certain events haven't been fleshed out, I would think the appropriate response solution would be to put a tag on the article requesting that. It kind of seems like you and Mtking aren't even quite on the same page though. One of you managed to ask about extremely important events "how is this at all notable?" while the other seems to be more concerned with a formatting change, albeit risking the deletion of a tremendous amount of information in the process.

Also, about this: "If the significant issues about an event were discussed for more than a single sentence, it adds weight to outsiders (non-MMA viewing folks) that these may really be notable articles and will help support the "keepers" case during AfD." if it were not for the two of you, this wouldn't even be coming up at all. Furthermore, yeah, most recent UFC events have something or other of major significance. UFC 145 had the complete ascendance of Jon Jones as a phenomenal champion bringing stabilization to one of the two most popular weight divisions for the first time in years, only so see his popularity among fans plummet, despite all UFC efforts to try and make him a cross-over star. UFC 144 had tons of ramifications by bringing major attention back to MMA not only in Japan, but also in Korea with Benson Henderson capturing the LW world title. 146 has the complete self-destruction of Alistair Overeem just before he would have unified the Pride, Dream, and WAMMA linear titles into the UFC title, in a match between the only two remaining elite HWs with no losses in the last several years, in a match that was supposed to finally answer the question of who the toughest person on the planet is, on top of an experimental main card that had (and still has) all matches taking place in the Heavyweight division. UFC 143 had an Interim Welterweight Title fight between Carlos Condit and Nick Diaz, the latter of whom was the first Welterweight in years to be considered a serious threat to Georges St. Pierre, only to have him lose the decision, announce his "retirement" in frustration, then test positive for marijuana, leading to the Nevada State Athletic Commission announcing that therapeutic exemptions for medical marijuana would technically be allowable under the current framework, something no one in all of MMA or boxing ever thought to look into apparently. These are all really more suited to literary accounts in my opinion, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. I could go on. I just don't think a lot of this stuff is necessarily what an encyclopedia is for, which is to be a dispassionate repository of unbiased information (exactly what MMA fans are looking for by the way). And if it is, then I really think adding a tag requesting more event background information or prose on the significance of the event itself would be a superior solution. Beansy (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point TreyGeek: ("...If ...more prose discussing the significance of the event...then "deletionists" will have less to argue from...") But let's do both. Some MMA-specific guideline that is somewhat less stringent is vital. If you accept no compromise, then this whole mess will continue indefinitely. About the prose: I asked Mtking a question about this, and would like both of your input, as you two know the scoop. Please see the preamble to the PLAN. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I can agree that some of the smaller shows like Fight Nights are not as notable and perhaps could be in one article. But most of the pay per view shows are clearly notable and have enough reliable sources. Portillo (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just having reliable sources is not enough to demonstrate enduring notability, if, as is the case those reliable sources are routine reposts on newsworthy sports events they don't demonstrate enduring notability. By way of an example have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game I assure you that game had far more reliable sources, far bigger viewership than these MMA events, but because those sources failed to show what the enduring significance the event had it was deleted. Another example this time outside the sports world in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India, again coverage by the container full, in the lead up to and during the event across the whole globe, the US, India, the EU and here in Aus, but with no enduring significance the article was deleted (and if memory servers me re-created and deleted again), I will again quote WP:NOT when it says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. so to retain these articles first we need to find sources that to that. Mtking ^(edits) 06:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While going to great lengths to destroy a resource that has been working perfectly well does make me question your motivation (I can cherry pick a million counter examples too if you like), I'd just like to point out that a home video release alone making individual UFC events a DVD you can purchase on Amazon.com is enough to be considered inherently notable under WP:GNG, which in turn should eliminate all UFC numbered events and select non-numbered events from this discussion entirely. Beyond that, really, this was a broadly established and very popular wiki-project that would have easily fell under WP:IAR guidelines ("Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" or at least not supposed to be) to the same degree a million other pages do, and I don't think a couple of people crusading for deletion should negate that. So I seriously think if we're going to discuss this at all, discussion should be narrowed at this point with all UFC PPVs and any other home video released UFC events removed from deletion considertion. On the flip side, if someone wants to compress KSW, BAMMA, or similarly tiered promotions into omnibuses I don't think you'd find much opposition, but it should be up to someone actually familiar with the subject to make the distinction of what is a lower-tiered league. For instance, Strikeforce Challenger shows have included at least one legitimate World Title match (the inaugural Women's Bantamweight World Title match, a title currently held by one of the two most popular women in the history of the sport, Ronda Rousey, who single-handedly may have saved Women's MMA from extinction on the highest level) and now half of those pages are gone without a replacement. Also I'd appreciate it if you didn't just make a partial response to this as I believe I stated two independent arguments for why either this entire thing is unnecessary or why approximately 140 UFC events should automatically be disqualified from deletion consideration.Beansy (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to cut to the chase here. I am seeing the same debate as before. TreyGeek, Mtking and others: are you willing to bend at all? If so, what compromise would be acceptable to you in a new MMA event guideline? Let's stop trying to sell each other our points of view. We all know existing guidelines by now. Let's propose some guidelines we can live with. Then we will know quickly if this will end in an impasse. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I am willing to agree to something along the lines of Pat walls1's proposal above providing it's backed up with evidence that the sources demonstrate that it reflects reality. SNG's are meant to help provide a short cut to show when something meets our inclusion policy, so for example WP:NBOX is a simple check list that says a person is presumed to meet the notability requirements if they meet one of the criteria on the list, this is because in order to accomplished such a feet you will have gotten the coverage of the type required to pass the inclusion policy. So what ever we propose as a guideline has to come with a rational and with examples thatshow it is a good short cut otherwise any guideline won't be accepted by the wider wiki community. Mtking ^(edits) 07:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the wider unaccepting wiki community seems to be mostly you and Trey at this point. Care to explain who exactly you feel you are representing? Beyond that though, I would consider the USA-Today/SBNation meta-rankings to be the gold standard for rankings, and is the only ones with multiple blessings from any "mainstream" publications that you all value so much. However this applies to people not events. Again, almost all UFC PPVs, much like WWE PPVs, have been available for individual home video release at some time or another (a few of the ones from "the dark ages" prior to the Unified Rules that made it a legitimate sport and after it was banned in most states have only been available as part of box sets). Any such event would qualify under WP:GNG I believe. You still haven't addressed why WP:IAR. Consider this quote: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored." No one in the MMA community had a strong objection to the Wikipedia articles' existence beyond apparently TreyGeek before you started this campaign. The minutiae points you've offered from the "enduring notability" clause is quite commonly trumped in any number of ways by the popularity of these pages, their uniform format, the numerous custom templates specifically made for MMA, the fact that these pages have existed for years uninterrupted, and similar examples of such pages from other sports and similar industries like the very PPV-based professional wrestling (there are literally hundreds of individual PPV-event pages for the WWE, WCW, and other promotions), per the general WP:IAR policy that this is an encyclopedia and thus a repository of information. There was a very-well established and in fact codified presentation of this material already in place, allowing the pages to do their job (i.e. give pertinent information that people were seeking; there's even been spats about how the match tables should be uniformly presented in biographies, but that is to this as a skirmish is to obliteration). You could delete most of Wikipedia if you wanted to use the first four pillars to the letter the way you are doing. Beansy (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mtking is talking of compromise: Yay!

Beansy: You're still pitching. And, comments like "...Care to explain who exactly you feel you are representing..." can make others defensive, and that's never good while negotiating. And, the length of your posts risk WP:TLDR.

But, we, my friends, are getting closer. We all know all the relevant guidelines and rationales by now. So, how about we lay down a draft of WP:MMAOKAYICANLIVEWITHTHAT, then bitch, haggle, and couter-offer our way to something all can accept? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what, fair enough? But we still seem very far apart. However I suppose I can live with Pat's criteria on a card as a standard for notability for events. I suppose it is acceptable for recent events. I would consider Bellator's 115 lbs. Women's Title to also be a legitimate world championship but it's a moot point due to Bellator's already omnibused articles. I also second the recommendation of using the USA-Today SBNation rankings locatated at BloodyElbow.com/rankings. However, those only archive back to about 2009? at the moment I think. Meanwhile modern MMA has been around for 19 years now. That is actually a huge problem. However, since the currently targeted articles are the most recent ones for some reason anyway, I suppose we can start there. I have a number of suggestions on how to determine whether a fighter was "important" enough or not to validate an older MMA event in the same manner, but I'll hold off on that for now.

As for "Of course, I am willing to agree to something along the lines of Pat walls1's proposal above providing it's backed up with evidence that the sources demonstrate that it reflects reality." I'm a little confused here by what you, Mtking, mean by "reflect reality," because that can be interpreted a number of different ways semantically. Are you talking about the sources? Would UFC.com's own event results be considered acceptable for? How about the Sherdog database for non-UFC events? Alternately are you questioning a choice of ranking sites? If you could please elaborate on that comment, that would be great. Beansy (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job. We seem to be heading into Bargainsville. Beansy: We don't know how far apart we are till we lay down the proposals and haggle. I'm pretty useless with evaluating MMA other than UFC, so you folks can hash that out.

I gather Mtking et al. will rightly object to Pat's 123 unless some conditions are included. Maybe it could read something like:

"All numbered UFC events are considered notable provided that they contain...and are...and blah blah blah..."

So, what "..."s do we want, and what can we forego? How about:

• ...do not necessarily need to have continued coverage beyond....
• ...should contain substantial content in prose form...
• etc etc.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Observation I have concerns about declaring all numbered events as automatically notable, although I understand the logic behind it. UFC 149 is one of the better examples with two separate AFDs that both resolved as merge [1] and [2]. While we can add clarity to the notability guidelines here, we have to be careful not to try and redefine them, and WP:GNG still has to be met. I do think this is a great place and time to start this discussion, and thrilled at the overall tone here. I would clarify for Beansy that TreyGeek and Mtking weren't alone in their perspectives: DGG, Beeblebrox and myself agreed with them, and others as well. Of course, we still need to find a working compromise and it will take a while, but everyone seems to be onboard with the idea of working together. One of the problems with establishing notability in the past has been sources. I'm still of the belief that websites like sherdog are great for sourcing facts, but not for establishing notability because they aren't independent enough. Of course they will cover every event. Obviously when ESPN or Sports Illustrated covers an event, that is clearly independent and establishes notability, as their scope is broader than one sport, and addresses the continuing impact issue for me. It may be difficult or impossible to create any hard and fast rule without considering each article on the merits of its individual impact, as documented by these independent and reliable sources. But I'm certainly open to any ideas that can add clarity to the guidelines here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Beansy: As a editor who's dabbled in the MMA project space from time to time I have a few points

1. Stop picking individual statements to attack. It's still an attack.
2. By "reflect reality", I assume Mtking was paraphrasing "A uninvolved user with no special devotion to MMA topics could draw the same conclusions from the provided neutral reliable sources".
3. A significant problem that we (collectively all of WP editors) is that rabidly fanatical supporters of MMA come in and argue that "black is white, up is down, every MMA event (even backyard exhibitions) should be included". Granted the example is extreme, but it demonstrates how several editors are under a siege of new event articles that are very poorly cited and written.
4. UFC.com's own event results/Sherdog's event results are good for stats of the event, but we need some prose around the stats to make it the article more than a stats reporting.
5. Finally, posts on various MMA interest sites (and posts on the MMA sub-reddit) inciting fans to come in and express blind faith keeps (or opposition to trying to tidy up the article space) is counter productive and only leads to further siege mentality. If you wanted to help out Wikipedia, go to the external communities to educate them how to go about expressing a policy based argument or suggest that they stop posting calls to arms.

I hope these points will help you, and others in the MMA space see what experienced editors see when looking at the discussions Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1) Not sure which you are referring to. Attacking points is part of debating. Different from attacking people. I suppose I didn't entirely separate the two when I was asking whose interests Mtking felt he was representing, which was probably a bit over the line. Obviously I'm still curious about most of the people's motivations here aside from TreyGeek (who appears to genuinely feel different formatting would be better). I'm okay putting aside all that for hammering out some sort of compromise.

2) Maybe but I really don't think lack of sourcing has been a particular problem with these articles. For instance, if you look at the sources for a specific Chess Championship that wasn't one of the very few that made international headlines and almost all the sources are going to be chess magazines, newsletters, or websites.

3) I've not been involved in this for long but that really sounds like an extreme overstatement. The _lesser_ promotions I've seen targeted included things like Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW), which I would consider the top promotion in at least Eastern Europe if not all of it. Some of these events have gotten over 10 million viewers on television. I'm still fine for omnibussing that one but it's hardly a backyard exhibition.

4) It's not that I completely have a problem with that, but most other sports are not held to that standard (do you really want me to list them? I'm being 100% literal when I'm saying Curling gets off easier; shall I give direct examples?), there generally is some background prose in any given UFC article at lesat, and the actual implications aren't always concrete and not really encyclopedia material. Was the winner of the main event on UFC on FX: Melvin vs. Guillard guaranteed a spot in a LW title eliminator? Most MMA fans seem to think so, but no one actually knows this. Jim Miller does seem to be in a #1 Contender match though against Nate Diaz and is headlining the next show on Fox. Maybe an "Aftermath" section in some of these articles or something would help. Where applicable.

5) I believe I've made a single comment post in a thread-reply to someone else's blog post on this subject, and asked people to not be idiots, not use ad-hominem attacks, and study the wikipedia guidelines. As for a "siege mentality," if you really want to be the (morally) better side you need to be willing to ignore the idiots making crude attacks (sometimes idiots like me) and look at the larger picture and not judge this entire fandom as "the enemy," if you feel you are under siege. Beansy (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur: Good points. Would still like Mtking to talk about "reflect reality". A lot of what you said could be solved if we can invite the MMA community to become Wikipedians per THE PLAN. They could not only expand and source, but protect integrity too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Dennis Brown! I don't think we even need a "hard and fast rule". If we throw in a few "likely"s and "substantial"s, that should work, right? (Ever notice that the guidelines are loaded with weasel words?)

I like the varied sources condition. That's probably agreeable, and necessary. If we could bend on the WP:PERSISTENCE a bit as a compromise, that would be good, considering the fights within the events do continue to be discussed anyway.

Two key components to keep at the forefront, I think:

• Identifying specific events, (Pat's 123 sounds good), which are subject to the more lenient conditions of this prospective guideline. And, others, which are either not, or are subject other conditions yet to be discussed.

• Trying to get a list of which existing guidelines can be compromised on, and which cannot. Then we can haggle better to find something that the community will approve of. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• From my experience, Persistence is a non-issue if the sourcing is strong enough (clearly not focused only on MMA events). When the sourcing is only dedicated MMA websites, it is a legitimate concern. This is kind of like a couple of overlapping concerns, I just have focused on the GNG side of this coin because I think it is easier to be objective about if everyone agrees 1. what is independent enough to establish notability. vs. 2. what is reliable enough to source "facts". I think we all agree on point 2, and feel that if we can focus on point 1, that might make a few things fall into place. What is "independent" or not is not as clear as it could be in WP:RS, which is why it would be appropriate for us to clarify here. And again, a site can be reliable without being independent, I can't stress that enough. Primary sites are just one example. My current perspective is this: If the only sources available for an event are from websites that are exclusively MMA related, then it doesn't pass WP:GNG. If it also has sources from other reliable publications that are more removed (cover other sports or topics) and the coverage is significant, then it is likely notable. Some of the UFC events get outside coverage, some don't, meaning that the independent publications themselves have already decided if the event was notable or not by their choice to cover them or not. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 13:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody good news indeed!

1. MMA, and in particular UFC is international. So, there must be bags of foreign language sources nobody is digging for.

2. If we get editors on board from the MMA community via THE PLAN, then maybe we can make a subpage here listing good sources, even rating their crediblity and arms-length. Something like this maybe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It does seem that foreign sites could be one solution. UFC 144 has mostly USA refs. When I search with http://www.google.com.br/, I see pretty good stuff like [3] and [4]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to be able to completely satisfy every wikipedia guideline but hell that's what WP: IGNOREALLRULES is for I think using reports from the UFC's broadcasters outside the US (ESPN UK, Rede, Rogers etc) should be encouraged as it satisfies WP: GEOSCOPE. Also to avoid situations like UFC 149 occurring again I don't think articles about future events should be created until the card is finalized. We're on the right track here let's not screw it up!! Fraggy1 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the distinct advantages of the omnibus system is that it allows a redirect to be created under the unsourced UFC match, pointing to the proper omnibus article section that contains whatever info exists. This removed the temptation of padding an unsourced article with junk to make it "look" good enough, and greatly reduces the risk of AFD. Eventually, some events will become notable enough to justify their own article, some won't, but you still have a logical system that points to the data for all events. All new events should be placed in the omnibus article first for this very reason. This is the only way to keep event data from from (properly) being deleted because it can't justify a stand alone article. And I'm actually confident we do meet every guideline when we do it this way. Each article that is stand alone still needs to meet WP:GNG, but that is no different than any other article on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the Omnibus article is there is a lot of events 2012 in UFC events is already an unreadable mess and it's only April, there's a very good reason why WWE PPV's aren't done as year by year articles. I agree that the number of MMA event needs to go down KSW, One FC, MFC events do not deserve there own articles and the sparness of there events comapared to UFC shows means an omnibus makes more sense. A UFC event, particularly a numbered or Fox event will contain several fights involving top fighters and sometimes multiple world championship fights. A lot of the problems with UFC articles can be fixed with a greater diversity in sourcing and hard work.Fraggy1 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is why we are here, not to push any idea, but to try something, tweak it, try again, until we have something that fits the basic description of an omnibus system. You can always create a new way (maybe in your sandbox) and show everyone, and if it is better, it would win favor. The omnibus system is new, and by no means have all the bugs been worked out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with the omnibus article is that it only includes results. Individual articles allows payouts, awards, attendance, gate takings, background and other information to be added, which is alot more useful for people who use Wikipedia to search for UFC events.

{{ec}*2 That's not a problem, only a challange. If you had looked at the 2012 in UFC events article, you would have seen a paragraph of prose giving the highlights, an infobox containing gate takings, attendance, buy rate, etc. and a listing of the contenders. It seems fairly clear to me that has all the information you are wanting to include. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm sidetracking a little but shouldn't the Ultimate Finale Articles be merged into the corresponding article as there technically the concluding episodes to a TV series? Fraggy1 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #3

This could sort of be a stage of the MMA notability push, so made it part of the section, and a arb. break was due anyhow.

Should I/we go ahead with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#The statement and invitation to MMA forums? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Anybody care to guess when we might come up with an agreeable guideline? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Give it a week or two. Lots of people don't check in regularly and it is important that there is a clear consensus so we don't repeat efforts. We have good momentum and good participation, we need to make it clear that no one is trying to force this by brute force. Putting a notice on a few pages, like 2012 in UFC events is likely a good idea, and would trust your judgement to decide which others. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it a week or so to start writing the draft? A week or so to decide whether or not an invitation is a good plan? A week or so for this to run its course?

"...Putting a notice on a few pages.." to help with the statement or for this guideline thing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• To first develop a consensus and clarify the guideline here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I may not get chance to respond more until Saturday, when I said above about "reflect reality" Hasteur hit the nail on the head all we have at this time is MMA fans saying they are notable and have lasting significance; well lets start having some cites that demonstrate that, not a single external link has been proffered in this whole debate. When I said about "wiki community" if you really think this is only me and one other go and have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Attention on MMA, any proposal here will have to go through a RfC fully promoted wiki-wide and unless it can be demonstrated to be reasonable and in line with other WP polices it will not garner much support. Mtking ^(edits) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur said "A uninvolved user with no special devotion to MMA topics could draw the same conclusions from the provided neutral reliable sources". That is a fair request and one I believe most major articles already meet, at least when I've actually used them. What you are saying is completely different. You're going back to square one asking about how one establishes notability. That's exactly the guidelines we are trying to hammer out here. What sort of external link are you looking for? I would be intrigued by a correlating example from a kickboxing event, non-Olympic judo tournament, non-Olympic amateur wrestling tournament, sumo tournament, or professional wrestling event (there are more pro-wrestling articles than MMA articles by the way). Beansy (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've been saying this for some time. Before you go to an RfC, you need to have a good idea what it is that you are asking for comments on. I would say a clarification (ie: a change) of the inclusion policy, which is what I've been focusing on. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Feedback request

1. Like TreyGeek says, "...more prose discussing the significance of the event...then "deletionists" will have less to argue from..."
2. Articles inherently satisfy WP:GEOSCOPE.
3. We are considering forgoing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as part of the compromise.
4. There are plenty of WP:DIVERSE sources using http://www.google.com.br/ etc.
5. Where do we stand on WP:EFFECT and WP:ROUTINE?
6. The omnibus system is good because every event can be represented, and many other reasons.
7. Is this our path forward:

• Get an idea of what this MMA guideline should contain.
• Lay down a lay down a rough draft?
• Bargain and tweak.
• Agree here.
• Bounce it off the community and get broad consensus.
• Get MMA forum folks on board
• Tag --> improve --> check off articles

Am I missing something?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather burnt out on all this right now but I have a suggestion on #1: where applicable make an "Aftermath" section or something similar to talk about the ramifications of an event and also help explain their longer term significance. I suppose it would increase the "prose" content of some of them. Also, on #2, yes, thank you for stating that clearly, articles being inherently satisfying to the people who use them is absolutely critical and I hope that that can be accomplished. Beansy (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Idea #1

• Inclusion Critieria For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article outside of the omnibus articles, the article should have at least one source that is both reliable, independent of the subject, and is significant coverage. This means that the one source passes WP:RS, is not primarily MMA related, and the coverage is about the event and doesn't just mention it in passing. Websites like sherdog are fine (and preferable) for sourcing facts, but not to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

See 1b below, which addresses one omission in the Inclusion Criteria. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Article creation When an event is announced through a source other than one of the fully independent types of websites listed above, the preferred way to introduce the material is to create a section in the proper omnibus article, then create a redirect in main space that points to it. This will allow an article to be created later if the event eventually passes the criteria for inclusion and makes searching and finding the event while it is in the omnibus system more logical and easier. All events should be in an omnibus article, regardless of whether or not they have an independent article. This allows a single page to list events logically on a single page, making it easier to find specific information about any particular event and compare event data. A article should not be created over a redirect until there is at least one source that meets the criteria above, and once created, a hat note pointing to this main article should be added at the top of the corresponding section in the omnibus article, allowing the reader to easily tell which events are particularly notable and have an article with more extensive information.

Commentary/Discussion

• Or something to this effect. Someone better than I would need to merge this into the existing guidelines, this isn't meant to be official text, just my explanation of the critieras. This would be consistent with current WP:GNG guidelines, yet quite lenient in interpreting them, AND it would insure that all new info is preserved somewhere where it will be allowed to be developed potentially for a full article. This would mean 99% less AFD issues plus more overall content. It just adds clarity. As to what info is on each omnibus article and how they are arranged would be another discussion. If I'm missing some finer point, feel free to point it out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• ENDORSE With all my heart, this is the kind of processs and guideline that I've been seeking for the articles. Only a few minor points: Obviously we don't want the omnibus articles to get too large, so splitting the omnibus articles prose into sub articles is definitely encouraged (i.e. 2012 in UFC events gets spinouts to 2012 in UFC Numbered Events, 2012 in UFC on FX, 2012 in UFC ...) as long as there's a minimum of 3 events that are sourced. Second, I'd like to see about 3 to 5 descriptive sentences of prose for an article if it's going to count to the sub article total and about 3 to 4 paragraphs besides the fight descriptions for stand alone event articles. The idea is to have information that a non-fanatic will read and be able to understand. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Question : How would that compare with how other sports are treated, for example, if that was to be applied to Baseball, would not every professional baseball game meet the requirements and therefore qualify for an article ? In which case this proposal would be out of step with current WP practices and if that's the way everyone wishes to go, that's fine, but we need to move this to a more central policy page (WP:Village pump (policy) for example). Mtking ^(edits) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can of worms alert. :) Maybe we should stick to MMA for now, and then others can follow this route too, if they like. This is because MMA is part sport, part event. Baseball can't claim that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) For example Allen's 2-run HR in 9th lifts Rays over Angels 4-3 or Mendoza, clutch hitting lead Royals to 4-2 win would both be described as from a WP:RS (CNN in this case) and CNN is independent of the subject, and they cover the games in significant detail. Mtking ^(edits) 23:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't invite the WP:OTHERSTUFF comparison, this is a local project space rule to help reduce the number of AfDs and to ensure that there's a reasonable structure in place before an event article gets split out. Hasteur (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not, all I am saying is how does this proposal stack up against established practice across other projects, and taking into consideration WP:CONLIMITED, if we are going to depart from that what are the implications. Mtking ^(edits) 23:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The key here is that what I am proposing is simple, understandable, reasonable, within policy, and isn't bogged down with a dozen different policies. Even those that hated the idea at first should find it a reasonable compromise since it guarantees all info will be kept and can be developed, with no new restrictions on article creation. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree it is simple and understandable, but at the moment I am not sure it is in line with our current practice or policy, all MMA events get covered in the sports section of most newspapers or news website, the same as football, baseball, basketball or cricket, so the net effect of this would turn all MMA events covered by CNN or the BBC or the LA Times into a notable event. Mtking ^(edits) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT and create Idea #2 ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• ENDORSE

• Inclusion Critieria Excellent. In fact using foreign sources, multiple refs should be easy.
• Article creation Excellent. As these get created before the actual event, birthplace should be omni, then {{main}}. As you say, this prevents lots of AfDs.

Shouldn't we exclude this requirement from the MMA notability guideline we're putting together, as it overlaps with current GNG? Besides, the aim is to publicize this as the best route. So, why not just add it as a statement to the Wikiproject main page. The slimmer MMA notability guideline the better.

The whole idea of "section then main" is already in the guidelines, right? What do you mean by "...need to merge this into the existing guidelines...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are already guidelines on the main page here. This isn't to replace GNG, this is to interpret GNG as it applies here, in plain english, so it must be 100 percent consistent. GNG requires 1. Independent, 2. reliable 3. significant. 4. At least one (more is better, we let sherdog and others be the "more than one" as long as one is truly independent) We are explaining what the means when you are referring to MMA, we are not redefining it, and we are doing so at the minimum standard. Baseball has to interpret GNG for itself and we need not concern ourselves with that, we only need to make GNG be "common sense" as applied here. This criteria isn't a guarantee it is notable, it just says you can probably assume it is if it passes this test. I think it will be easier to decide what the omnibus articles should look like once we all understand the criteria and methods for introducing new material. More time adding, less time debating, because it is clear. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

100% agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Idea #1b

• Inclusion Critieria For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article outside of the omnibus articles, the article should have at least one source that is reliable, independent of the subject, and discusses the event and its significance. This means that the one source passes WP:RS, is not primarily MMA related, and the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine newsreporting of a sports event published in the days following it and doesn't just mention it in passing. Websites like sherdog are fine (and preferable) for sourcing facts, but not to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

Commentary/Discussion

• Endorse You are correct that it should consider WP:ROUTINE and that doesn't introduce too much complications. This is how we work out what we would introduce at RfC. Of course, now we need more people, which will take a few days. I will strike mine above as it has an obvious flaw that yours fixes. We may have to do this several times. This is the process, and this is progress. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Though I would prefer something like "multiple" over "at least one source" for RS. This would help produce more robust, AfD-proof articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It would, it would also make it more likely to get wider support at the RfC, but maybe less like to win support of the MMA fans/forums. Mtking ^(edits) 01:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

GNG suggests but doesn't require multiple sources. Keep in mind, there will be other sources from sherdog, etc. that source the facts themselves. We are only setting the bar for independence. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But GNG is just that, "general", from there other guidelines spell out exceptions, provisos, etc. So, why not use "multiple" to, as Trey says, give deletionists "less to argue from"? With foreign language references, there should be plenty. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

I would argue that the other guidelines do not offer exceptions, but instead off guidance as how to apply a very general guideline to a specific area. This keeps GNG from being too large and confusing. My experience has always been that if there is a dispute where an article fails GNG but passes a sub guideline, GNG wins every time. GNG is the authority to which all other guidelines get their authority. It has the broadest consensus after being held to the highest scrutiny. The guidelines here are just that, guidelines, and even WP:GNG isn't a policy. An article that passes the guidelines here at MMA can still be deleted for failing WP:N in general. They are only here to give us guidance as to what is likely if the notability of the subject matter were to be called into question, they aren't here to be the final word. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse, with one suggestion Since event announcements and details usually get covered by places like MMAJunkie, Bloody Elbow, and Sherdog first (as in there's often an article up within an hour or two), I would give a grace period between when an article is created for an event and when it gets sourced with a mainstream news report about it before deletion. Say, an article cannot be up for more than two weeks without the latter? I think that would be sufficient for newly created articles, allowing that a deleted article may also be recreated once there is a mainstream news source included. Also I would give editors a longer period of time to add such a citation to existing articles (since there are a lot of them). Beansy (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the plan is for these new articles to be born mostly in omnibuses, expand, then break away to {{main}} articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can live with that, but the people who write these things have to be made aware, and they're not going to be happy that MMA is now being held to what will be perceived as a higher standard than most of the competitive martial arts that serve as its pillars (I have a million more examples). Therefore, the new guidelines need to be very transparent so that when someone makes a page for UFC 150, which I'm guessing will be announced will be announced within the next month (and will probably be a mega-card), it isn't immediately threatened with a deletion tag, but instead gets directed to agreed upon guidelines to adhere to. Maybe a tag for MMA-wikification guidelines can be created for this? Beansy (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"...people who write these things have to be made aware..." Good point. I'm not sure how to spread the word, or what to do when people make stubs. I suspect we cannot put in the new guideline that "event articles must grow up in the omnibus nursery".

Starting UFC 150 as a stand-alone today would be just as vulnerable as any event considering the poor sources that would be available. I don't know if the omnibus nursery is an enforceable "higher standard", but more of a "better way".

Am I missing something here? What is our procedure when UFC 150 is created in advance of the event, and not up to snuff? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the way I use a lot of the articles on upcoming events is to keep a tally of what matches have been announced (there are typically 10-12 matches at any given UFC event). Maybe something for UFC 150 could start in the 2012 in UFC events article or whatever when the event is first announced, and as the card is sufficiently developed with significant matches and it meets single-article criteria with news coverage it could then be made into its own article. Adding a link to 2012 in UFC events to existing UFC event articles from this year will help make readers more aware of the omnibus article. In conjunction, you could then have reciprocal links in the omnibus articles to the individual UFC articles when the required threshold for an individual article is met and one is created. This would also work for Strikeforce shows in my opinion (the UFC and Strikeforce will account for 80% of MMA events able to meet the notability criteria laid out so far). Beansy (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The MMA articles aren't going to be held to a higher standard for inclusion as a stand alone. The problem is that it is more complicated with MMA articles versus an article on a book, for example, because books don't get routine coverage and MMA events do. The key here is that we are creating a "safe" zone for the material to be developed. The real beauty of this is that puts the responsibility and discussion with the MMA community. For instance: A section in an omnibus article can be developed, then you go to the talk page of the omnibus article with "I think UFC 999 is ready to fork into its own article" and the other editors !vote. Often, it will be clearly "support". Other times, it might be split, which gives people the time to go dig up more sources if they exist. Other times it will be clear that it is not ready. At first, you might create an article and someone else pushed it to AFD (maybe it stays, maybe it gets deleted), but soon the MMA community will be able to clearly tell when an article will be accepted by the wider community. This gives the MMA/Wiki community some breathing room and reduces lost effort and drama. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This works for me, but for the major promotions like UFC, the omnibus article is going to be too large and unwieldy for every event to "grow up" there. I would like to re-push the concept of sub-articles that classify the events more if they are not up to the level of independent event articles (2012 in UFC Numbered Events, 2012 in UFC on FX events, 2012 in UFC on Fox events, etc.) The idea is to split the big omnibus into something more readable in a single sitting. Hasteur (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, and I'm working on some ideas for that, but need some education from others, and want to cover that in a different discussion. The focus here is just the guidelines. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I see pros and cons. Advantages of a single omni are greater, I think:

• Ease of navigation
• A cramped omni is incentive to push sections into {{main}}s. We want them to outgrow the pot and need planting in the forest of articles.
• Sequence! MMA's all important sequence of events.
• KISS

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But yes, as Dennis says, let's focus on the guideline and then worry about that. Also, I'm dying to know how we will handle existing articles and new pre-event stubs, but we can maybe save that discussion for after, (unless it is relevant to putting together this guideline now.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Article Creation section wasn't changed, so it would apply. If someone creates the article anyway, and it easily can't pass the criteria, then that info is merged into the omni article and the article becomes a redirect to the omni. No admin or AFD needed, you could boldly do that yourself and discuss it on the talk page. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and I forgot to mention. If it DID get pushed to AFD before someone noticed, it would quickly close as "merge to omni per previous consensus". At first, everyone just !votes "merge" and it quickly snow closes as such. I would need to check policy on that, but I'm betting there are ways to quickly close as such, IF this was the guideline here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. And while we're on the topic, if a guideline is established, and existing articles don't measure up, could we hold off on AfDs during a campaign to improve them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would argue yes we can and should, but that won't stop some random editor on new page patrol from doing so. That is why the guideline change is needed, to offer the closing admin guidance, or to justify a faster closing. (the proposals are only slightly different than the current guidelines anyway, just more specific). If the event is clearly not an article, just a stub with one source from an MMA only site, the better solution is to merge, redirect and THEN discuss it, just so we prevent any hassles, as the end result would already be pretty clear. If editors follow the guidance here and start in omni, then there is very little chance it will be an issue, which is the point. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 13:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect again. One more for you: search above for "provisos". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is a question, since UFC 150 was announced either today or late last night, with a date (August 11th), location (Denver), and venue (the Pepsi Center arena). Obviously the MMA media were quick to report things, including internationally[[5]], but it also already has articles about it on Yahoo Sports[[6]] and ESPN.com[[7]] with both reporting a Lightweight World Title match, and with both articles being more than just stubs, and explaining the significance of the event so far. However, I haven't found mainstream international coverage yet beyond a non-article mention on Globo.com (Globo is Brazil's #1 television network as far as I know), which I wouldn't count. The card as a whole has only 3 announced matches so far out of a probably 11 or 12. So, what would be the remaining criteria needed at this point for an independent article that we could agree upon? Additional news coverage from multiple international mainstream sources I'm pretty sure is inevitable after doing further resource, although obviously that doesn't mean anything until it actually happens, but in any event perhaps this could be considered a test case to discuss. Beansy (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The coverage you linked to is just the sort of routine coverage that the announcements of these events get (can't read the Globo.com one) , so as far as a stand alone article (correct me Dennis if I have misinterpreted your wording) there would need to be an article that discuss why this event is going to be of enduring significance in other words why will people keep writing about this long after the UFC trucks have left town to go to UFC 151. Mtking ^(edits) 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were past that point with comparing it to other sports, and were instead trying to establish standards of notability within MMA. Trying to compare individual sports with major team sports is a fallacy anyway. Will anyone talk about the 2008 Legg Mason Tennis Classic - Singles tournament years from now? It's not even a Grand Slam. I'm pretty sure tennis fans will. Will anyone talk about the Formula One 2011 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix? Auto racing fans will, and I'm sure they knew they would as soon as the event was announced. Will anyone talk about the 2005 Iditarod? I'm pretty sure sled racing fans will. Does anyone talk about the 2009 K-1 World Grand Prix Final 16? Kickboxing fans do. Will anyone talk about UFC 150? MMA fans will undoubtedly, and would even if a World Title wasn't on the line. Several years from now, will baseball fans talk about a particular game this summer between two random teams that gets viewed by millions of people? Not unless something absolutely incredible happens, and even then probably not unless they're a fan of that team. Again, we're trying to establish standards of enduring notability within a sport. Beansy (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moot. If you look at the main page here, it already spells out the guidelines for notability, which are close to what is already being discussed (identical in most ways). Until there is a change, those are the guidelines. If you can demonstrate how an excluded article meets all the points of the existing criteria, then I'm all ears. All the comparing is pointless as it is entirely subjective. That is the purpose of the guidelines, to provide an object stick with which to measure by. Sometimes I think we all forget that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Let's not lose momentum. Shall we push forward?
• Will this proposed guideline mention specific events (Pat's 123, for example)?
• Are we ready to lay down a draft?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am open to including some form of mention relating to specific events, but before we could, it would have to be shown that at least more often than not that class of events passed the proposed test above. The big advantage to this wording over the current is it explains exactly what is expected of the article on a MMA event. Mtking ^(edits) 09:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"I am open to including some form of mention relating to specific events". Parsing that, it sounds like all you are even "open" to is the existence of specific MMA events being mentioned somewhere and nothing more. That would mean that the lower limit of what you are open to is reducing hundreds of articles down to a short list of the biggest events with event names, dates, and locations, and no other details, placed as a section inside the main Mixed Martial Arts article or main UFC article. If that's not what you meant, could you perhaps clarify what you meant?

Beyond that, the standards of inherent notability seem to be the biggest impasse here. I'd like to resolve that too, but there are a number of other issues that I think most people seem to be much closer to an agreement on. Specifically:

• What goes into an event-specific page or an omnibus article (I think the elements that were already in there in the first place would be fine with the addition of a section that details the ramifications of the event, and maybe minus walk-out music lists)

• How a promotion is split into specific omnibus articles (if they are split at all, in the case of a short-lived promotion; I think we have an agreement that for most promotions annual omnibuses are fine, while Bellator's numerous shows require being split into different seasons and the annual Summer series, and the UFC's numerous huge events require four different articles)

• When to add an event to an existing omnibus article (I would think sufficient criteria for an addition to an omnibus would be once a name, date, and venue are announced, with some flexibility on venues in situations where a venue is announced and then canceled while the event relocates; other details would be added as they are announced)

• What to do with omnibus articles as events are split off (I would propose to keep all the raw data and continue to add it, with much less emphasis on prose than in the individual articles)

• How to make editors aware of the new guidelines once established

• I think we've come to a tentative consensus that when inherent notability of a specific event has been established it is to be separated from an existing omnibus article.

So perhaps we could work on those at the moment? It will make things a lot faster once the notability issue is resolved and it may also build some momentum in the meantime. Beansy (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What goes into event specific or omnibus article: Infobox with date/place/location/attendance/gate takings/prize pot, 1~3 decently sized paragraphs explaining anything besides raw match-up stats (including if a fighter is switched out, the event is moved/rescheduled), and raw match-up statistics table

How to split a promotion's events into manageable units: All events start in the List of events omnibus. Once we get to 3~4 events on the omnibus that can be classified a specific way (EX:2012 in UFC on Fox,2012 in Bellator Summer Series) then we can spilt them to a sub-omnibus article

When to add a new event to an existing omnibus article: Your definition sounds about right with the explicit caveat that promotions that have not hosted about a year's worth of events yet be not added as they're more likely to close up shop before they establish any real notability.

What do do with Omnibus articles as events are split: I would say remove the raw data, and re-write the prose to give a overview of the event.

How to make new editors aware of the guidelines: The same way we do with all new editors, we offer them the advice, explain WP's consensus model, show them the guidelines, let the "WikiAdults" get the articles into a position where it's likely to not be AfDed, start applying sanctions for those that refuse to work collaboratively.

Sorry for the long line of posting Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary Break

Moving Backwards

Since Wikipedia ostensibly pretends to be a useful reference for all its users, can someone please please summarize for all the actual people who use these pages why the hell are we doing this? I posted the following msg to another page a while back and didn't get a single reply from the 3 "contributors" who obviously know very little (other than it's a sport) about the article content under discussion yet are on a personal crusade for a change that NONE of the very numerous page users want:

AFAICT, the argument fundamentally comes down to this: "this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite". These two purposes are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for a page to be useful to fans and be of notable historical value. For example, prior MMA events have bearing on current and future ones, and therefore are quite frequently references by those interested in the background tree leading up to any subsequent upcoming event. The hits for each event page tell the tale of this inherent usefulness. I can only assume that this argument is being perpetuated by someone who knows practically nothing about the specifics of the subject/sport at hand and therefore cannot contribute a meaningful opinion. Even if we're to combine the the pages, the result is unwieldy and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work; it does not cost any more bits, but in fact less, to link smaller pages. This isn't some new revelation, Tim Berners-Lee had it when he created the WWW/HTML.

At some point I think we have to step back and ask if the priority of Wikipedia is provide a useful reference or provide a playground for bureaucrats who don't care about the usefulness of the end result. These two purposes ARE mutually exclusive, so will the less than handful of crusaders please answer this simple question (you know who you are). Agent00f (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your questions have already been asked by others and answered previously, above. If you ask more specific questions, it is easier to give more specific answers. The issue isn't the number of bits. In part, the issue is that other editors keep nominating the articles for deletion, and many are getting deleted. One solution was the merge to allow articles to develop before spinning them off, to reduce deletions, and allow more MMA content on the whole. It is helpful if you assume good faith, and consider that the actions being discussed are for reducing deletions and debates. It is fine to disagree with the solutions presented, but it is more helpful when you suggest better ideas. "Leaving it alone" has already failed spectacularly, so it isn't a viable option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I have read much of the above and cannot find what I seek (and what you speak of). Even if it exists, no normal sane MMA fan who uses these pages is going to go through the pain when a simple summary from the decisionmakers makes it so much easier for EVERYONE ELSE. If anything, that attitude is exactly the kind of bureaucracy over clarity that anyone looking for straightforward information find so abysmal. More to the point, if the fundamental issue seems to be that a few (and by few I mean 3) other editors who obviously have zero interest in this topic/sport other than just another target for their rule-guided rather goal-guided obsession is causing problems, why is everyone else compromising the USEFULNESS of all the material to accommodate their OCD these excessive demands? It's also clear that we're only assuming "good faith" in their ability to argue minutia rather than serve users, and that "leaving it alone" is only being dropped to satisfy a vocal minority who doesn't even count among the actual userbase, instead of because it's an inherently poor solution in the eyes of actual wiki users. Finally, the simple and clear question above still doesn't have an answer. Agent00f (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Anyone can register an account, and nominate the article on the same day, in good faith. Doing nothing means that people will keep nominating these articles because, at the least, there is reason to believe they don't comply with the criteria here. I can't stop that, no one can. So you find the ideas on this page as fatally flawed. Ok, fair enough: Then what do you suggest as a solution to stop all these articles from getting nominated and deleted at AFD? I'm all ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to automatically assume it's done in good faith when it's beyond abundantly obvious that it's less than a handful of users who have an agenda which is in conflict with the goals of all the other users. Let's step back again and evaluate the situation: there's some pages on the web with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of users who are quite content, then there's less than a known handful of "contributors" whose actions screw up this arrangement and make life harder not only for the users but also creates unnecessary work for their peers. Add to this the fact they already expressed they don't care about anyone else. Given that this is something which occurs on the internet with great frequency, the solution seems rather obvious to me. The alternative is that we must necessarily accommodate crusaders just because they can be persistently annoying. Agent00f (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Agent00f, you have come in claiming malicious intent of several editors without specific proof, you've accused Mtking of deliberately wanting to wreck the entire article space, and you've made strong suggestions that editors are acting in bad faith with the article space and on the policy pages. This constitutes an official warning to knock off the assumptions of bad faith. Wikipedia works by consensus, and for the most part we're forming one. The reason why we're laying out all these policies and rules is to prevent editors such as yourself from landing on the wrong side of the policies and being sanctioned for it. I think I can speak for most of the contributors to this draft when I say that we're trying to make a fairly ironclad checklist (as that's what several drive-by nominators use) to prevent the unnecessary deletion of articles. Hasteur (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
          • To the contrary, I've never said that anyone is acting maliciously toward another. To be clear, what I said is that they have acted selfishly, a rather different concept altogether. This claim is very self-evident given that they see no value in the views of the far greater plurality who actually use the pages, instead dropping only very narrow interpretation of the guidelines in every reply. Their faith in their own personal take on the Wiki rules is quite devout and apparently unassailable by evidence or argument to the contrary, so there's no reason to question this good faith and I'm puzzled at why you feel I was. However given that they've brought up the users approximately zero times, I can only assume that their faith in users is approximately zero. Ergo, from my perspective I'm not the one perpetuating wrong assumptions. Agent00f (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
          • it's beyond abundantly obvious that it's less than a handful of users who have an agenda which is in conflict with the goals of all the other users, less than a known handful of "contributors" whose actions screw up this arrangement, creates unnecessary work for their peers, we must necessarily accommodate crusaders just because they can be persistently annoying,what I said is that they have acted selfishly, a rather different concept altogether,very self-evident given that they see no value in the views of the far greater plurality who actually use the pages,faith in their own personal take on the Wiki rules is quite devout and apparently unassailable by evidence or argument to the contrary,I'm not the one perpetuating wrong assumptions. These are the attacks on editors who are attempting to uphold the policies as they exisist and are here for the long run. Not the fairweather whims of the MMA community who come in for their day in the sun and vanish overnight. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • These are all factual statements based on what (and only what) certain editors have post themselves. If you feel they are not accurate in any way, please argue the case for it instead of dropping righteous indignant in an attempt to stop an uncomfortable discussion about how things are. Sometimes, the truth can portray people in a poor light, that's simply how reality is. However, just as there can be two divergent opinions on how to handle wiki pages, I don't feel that covering up what is real because it can hurt feelings is preferable to being open and transparent. For example, it's simply undeniable that creating these new omnibus pages is a bunch of work, and the results are plainly worse for their users. Not once have the 3 editors we all know spoken of this plain and obvious fact to indicate that they give a damn. Given that all evidence to date supports what I have written, I cannot rescind these statements of fact; they can be deleted, but not because they're inaccurate in any way. Now that we have established these are all correct, I hope someone can address this reality openly and transparently. Agent00f (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Agent, you've managed to restate the problem, but I'm asking what is your solution? What fix will make these problems go away? I'm quite sincere here, I would like to hear what you think would fix this mess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think very few of the users or editors who generally created, maintained or read the MMA articles had any egregious problems with them in the first place (and without anyone being "sanctioned" that I can recall as long as they followed the established format). That's the problem. The MMA wiki project and format has been well-established for several years. There are a few things that few contributors to those articles would terribly object to (the removal of entrance-music lists, for example), but those things are completely trivial compared to what has been proposed. This is why people need to know why these are actual "problems" not protected under Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar: "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." These were/are informational articles with a uniform format, a solid and well-established community that would maintain them and protect them from vandalism, and would resolve internal formatting disputes on their own, and were pages with considerable popularity, and the articles existed in such a way that they helped those interested in the sport have a deeper understanding of it and its history, and those who were looking for specific historical information in MMA find their answer, while being generally and inherently satisfying to their userbase. The result is that absolutely no one is happy with the current situation. There are compromises people have put on the table that I could personally live with, but it is absolutely fair to ask what purpose the current action against the MMA Wikipedia Project serves beyond satisfying bureaucracy in and of itself, when Wikipedia is explicitly not a bureaucracy. Beansy (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis_Brown, my overall point is that to the users of these pages, these all look like solutions in search of a problem. IOW, no problem exists with the pages themselves, and if we're forced to identify the "problem" as source of the dispute, it's the 3 persons here who seem to have a personal vendetta against a useful reference despite knowing nothing about how the resource is being used. To put it bluntly, get rid of these few troublemakers whose purpose is at odds with everyone else (ie thousands), and everyone will be happy. This is exactly why I address my criticism to them directly, and why they will continue to dodge the question above of where their purpose lies. Put another way, given they are 3 people who have no interest in the subject otherwise, while there are far more active contributors who see no problem with the status quo, why the hell is anyone even giving them time of day? As some reinforcement for just how terrible this new system is: no entity in MMA thinks of UFC events in terms of annual "seasons"; it's a context which simply has no meaning, whereas an Event/Card very much does to anyone remotely versed in MMA. Other useful ways of organizing MMA information are by title/weight and by fighter, both of which are also already covered in wiki. The comparison to seasonal sport would be like dividing them by month with an entry for each, eg "Jan 2007 F1 races"; IOW even worse than a waste of effort for the many other volunteers trying to appease a very vocal tiny minority. Furthermore, to elaborate on idea around guidelines for Wiki, IMO the fundamental goal of the project is to present useful general reference info, and the point of the rules are guidelines to assist contributors towards that end. There is no dispute here AFAICT that the existing MMA pages are useful references for everyone with an interest in the sport, and until the three crusaders can propose a superior solution themselves we're simply pampering those throwing a tantrum without a purpose. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite beautifully argued, Beansy. If there's no overriding objective for usability, isn't Wikipedia just a social experiment? It's worth looking at who the proposed compromise is satisfying. Are the pages usable for its actual viewers? If not, are the pages gone for the deletionists? If not, is the compromise just a 'win' (I assume good faith, but I struggle to suspend logic and ignore basic human nature) for people who felt like changing something without any plan in mind whatsoever? If the honest truth is only a 'yes' to the last question, can you really say that's reason enough to break from an established format? Can you really say that satisfies common sense? Can you really say 'There's nothing horribly wrong about this?' You tell me. I say the following with no intent to offend: Perhaps it's time to X out of this box, look left, look right, and look ahead again. Perspective's valuable. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• You both raise interesting points, and I appreciate the overall tone. It is late here, too late to give a proper reply, and besides I want to think about your points. Again, my role here has and is to help implement whatever the consensus is, that is within the guidelines at Wikipedia. Yes, it sounds bureaucratic and to a degree it is I suppose, but there is a degree of bureaucracy here whether we admit it or not. I'm not interested in making changes solely for the sake of bureaucracy, however. I came here because of a string of AFDs that were full of sockpuppets and meatpuppets and frankly, lots of bad faith. The fact that I'm neutral as to MMA serves a purpose as one voice that isn't tainted by love or hate of the sport. Let me be perfectly clear: The numbers in a vote do not impress me. The logic and rational applications of common sense and the 5 pillars, as well as other guidelines does. In my opinion, it was a mess before, but it is still a mess, and I've sworn that I will ride it out until we can find a compromise that works best for the largest number of people and is still acceptable to the larger community as a whole. And yes, the larger community matters, because people who don't like MMA, or love it, or don't care, they all have the same voice here. A few people are still coming here whose faith I doubt, but most of the people still here I don't doubt, even if we disagree on some points. Every time someone announces for their buddies to come here on outside forums, it just slows down the process. Again, numbers of votes mean nothing on Wikipedia, it isn't a democracy. But I take your comments in full faith, and I've been talking to others, including TG, Mt, Anna and admins who have been involved, and I'm trying, truly trying, to help provide some guidance on moving forward. I ask a little patience, and most of you have complied. We all need to remember to continue to assume good faith and remember that we all want to find a solution. In that respect, we are already on the same side. Lets work on finding other commonalities that we agree on, build trust in each other, and work a solution in a calm and productive way. It looks to me that we are already moving there by the fact that we can calmly discuss this, and I appreciate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "The numbers in a vote do not impress me": If the voice of the people who use the reference pages on a given subject are not the primary concern, then the question become what exactly is the purpose of having a wiki anyway? This might not be a dictatorship of the masses, but I hope it's not the dictatorship of a detached elite either. "remember that we all want to find a solution": I think it's more important to discern what problem is being "solved" here. For those interested in MMA and thus view the pages, it's to provide the most useful reference for the sport possible. For some, it appears to be that some useful pages do not live up to their rigid personal interpretation of general guidelines. These are cross purposes and fundamentally dualing priorities here, which is exactly why I asked the first question which has not been answered by anyone (though we could all hazard a guess given what's been going on). I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other, but it's critical the powers that be defend their preference in their decision. Put in simple terms, it seems the point of Wiki as a whole is to draw the audience for any general topic of reference (which the individual UFC pages most assuredly do given that they're events viewed by millions), and to leave them with their curiosity satisfied. The current state of things cover both to the best of the contributor's abilities. Of course others can disagree this is a good way to evaluate pages, but I only ask that they also state the basis of their disagreement simply. Also, speaking of decisions, I was hoping from the beginning that someone, anyone, can eventually summarize the executive decision(s) so that the rest of us don't have to divine it from many long and poorly organized pages.Agent00f (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Agent00f, again you're making tangential/ad-homenim attacks. STOP NOW. The status quo for how MMA articles is not working. That's why we are needing to refine the current guidelines.Hasteur (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
      • If we're conducting ourselves to the standards of formal logic, please specify how any of the above is tangential or adhom. AFAICT, reflecting on how these pages are serving users is quite relevant to a discussion about how to format these pages. I have also not predicated any judgement on any specific person (to be fair many people use the "adhom" fallacy without understanding what it means). Perhaps my argument was not clear in which I can re-state even more simply: there are clearly two different and divergent ways of evaluating the worth of a page. One way is to consider its usefulness to actual users, which is how I and all other users in general do it, and which doesn't factor into the judgement of a few here (as we can plainly see from all their comments above). Another path is to evaluate the page against personal interpretations of general wiki guidelines, which is what the latter use, and which I obviously do want to engage in (for various good reasons I can expand on if anyone cares). These two approaches are fundamentally different, and it's best if we all got a clarification of what the powers that be prefer so that we don't waste our time chasing solutions down the wrong path.Agent00f (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I have to agree that there is no semblance of an ad hominem attack in Agent's post. Personally, I'm getting sick of the innuendo, and the accusations being levied at one side of the contributors. We've seen at least one false sockpuppet allegation (I don't feel it necessary to link the page, but if anyone wants to see it, I will provide a link), and the minority appear to be trying to make the point that there is 'meatpuppeting' going on. I think it's clear people visited those pages. Anna was kind enough to provide us with page view statistics. It's really quite plausible that people tried to visit those pages, were unable to, and independently came to these discussions. I think it's really quite rich that some experienced contributors seem to be assuming people are 'meatpuppets' because there was some lobbying on some forums (you can call it lobbying, I call it informing potentially affected third parties). That is an example of gross hypocrisy. We should assume good faith, and you should assume we've been canvassed? It's obscene and it's offensive. As is the constant tagging of users on this side of the argument as 'fanboys.' MtKing (and others) make it really quite hard to assume good faith when he uses words to the effect of 'let the MMA fanboys go cry about it on their forums when Wikipedia takes away their statsbook.' I didn't see any apology for that. Without such, I can't see where the rationale for assuming a lack of bias comes from. I'm not a boy. I'm a man. I'm a fan man (Please note: I am not the Fanman). Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
          • You deplore innuendo, but contribute to it. Great to see the double standard in effect. Hasteur (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Do you have any intention of backing up that claim or challenging any of my assertions? I will gladly substantiate them. If not, feel free to stop accusing people of things without basis, when they disagree with you. It's transparent. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Transparency is what WP is founded on. Either lay out what you believe to be the false claim of Sockpuppetry that you asserted in the 13:38 post or strike it to show a retraction of your claim. Civility is applicable to every editor. As such I am striking my commentary about the double standard, but I still think your posting invokes such a standard. Editors who have been working on the project are extraordinarily familiar with the "Call To Arms" mechanic that has been repeated multiple times in the 6 months I've been looking at the topic space. It appears that every time the project starts to take a step forward in raising the bar of quality, hordes of newly registered accounts (and IP editors) come out of the woodwork to clamor for the status quo. I say again... The Status Quo for MMA articles is not working. This is evidenced by the rounds at various content discussion boards, ANI, and multiple forms of dispute resolution. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
                • Transparency, yes. Transparent retaliation, I don't believe so. That said, I will take your retraction as a positive sign. Here is the SPI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129/Archive I would appreciate an acknowledgement that I did indeed say I would provide the evidence upon request, then followed up exactly as I said I would. I am not suggesting that you are personally adhering to a double standard, Hasteur. I am suggesting that what I perceived to be an incorrect accusation of ad hominem attack is adding to a distinctly anti-MMA fan atmosphere. I'm willing and able to contribute (not just to MMA), and I am clearly capable of being civil. I just don't appreciate the continued vilification of MMA fans. As for the Call to Arms pattern, are you suggesting that this should negate an assumption of good faith initially? I think that's unfair and wrong. I don't get the sense that we're being encouraged to participate. I get the sense that we're being dismissed as 'fairweather' and encouraged to leave. I don't appreciate that. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again I agree that the old format was fine. The MMA Wiki Project is a capable group of editors who make sure that UFC articles are well sourced, detailed and filled with useful information. Not sure what the point of it is, but the new format will only damage the successful coverage of UFC events on Wikipedia. After an event, the article for the event always get high traffic. Portillo (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• It should be clear, but when I say that the sheer number of votes don't impress me, I am clearly referring to droves of people that have never been here, suddenly appearing and their only contribution is "Mee too!" at a !vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy is very clearly the basis for my statement, if anyone needs the actual link. What convinced me is strong arguments and open and honest discussion. In other words, good faith deeds by those who are participating. And yes, I've seen many, many threads on the various forums calling for others to participate here, in hit and run "mee too!" fashion, and when it happens, I'm not persuaded. As to those arguing they are useful, this link is likely a good read. Utility is a valid concern, but it doesn't trump the existing guidelines. Again, my goal is to try marry the two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm not using 'It's useful' as a reason to keep the articles. I think other people have properly summed up the argument of notability for inclusion. I'm suggesting that utility ought to be relevant in the WEIGHT arguments are given when trying to establish the consensus, and particular when considering a compromise. My point on usability is only relevant in the context of an unnavigable omnibus. If a compromise can be reached whereby the information should be kept, it seems contrary to logic, and contrary to utility for such information to be presented in an in-optimal manner, solely to appease people who won't be using it. Kind regards, Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "What convinced me is strong arguments and open and honest discussion." What would convince me and other page users that this statement is true is if the simple arguments of fact presented here by those opposed to change are all addressed instead of "noted" without a subsequent reply (this is not necessarily direct at Dennis Brown, who has been among the more helpful editors). What's been obvious from the start is that actual empirical evidence like page hit stats and discussion of use cases (many graciously provided by Ana) have been ignored and the majority was roped into an argument between personal interpretations of vaguely worded/connected rules (ironically guidelines ostensibly set up to make for the best user experience). Let's be completely frank here and consider how a typical wiki user (rather than a career editor) sees this discussion: a couple of insiders leveraging their knowledge of the system and unambiguous rule minutia with the consequence of taking down what is a very useful public reference resource. Even in light of this "injustice", a common user would be very hesitant to step into this fray of bureaucratic debate esp if he sees straight up facts being brushed aside for focus on rules seemingly only based on other rules, even if the hideous markup language (why isn't this done w/ proper discussion sw?) wasn't already daunting enough. Thus the voice of stake-holders (ie users) is shut out altogether, even if that's not the direct intent. Agent00f (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is a separate comment on the role of "compromise" in this situation. Not sure why I persist on this given that I haven't received a single straightforward reply yet; I'll just chalk that up to not being clear enough instead of lack of good faith. So to put the question as simply as possible: what exactly are we "compromising" between here? If it's between different factions of bureaucracy, then there's nothing more to be said by people not interested in these strictly internal matters. However, if it's between some semblance of the real world and bureaucracy (ie what claims to be useful and what claims to be technically correct), then it's worth noting that while it's always possible in some sense to split the difference between two divergent paths, splitting between reality and the rulebook makes for arbitrary decision making which is not conducive to rational objectives. Also, speaking of logic/reasoning, in its formal academic formulation resorting to axiomatic truisms to argue deductive logic will never make for a provably consistent case. Put more elegantly, there's a reason why science with its emphasis on observable empirical reality rather than rigid mathematical definition is far more successful at producing positive real world results; and it's also worth noting that the technically correct camp's "rigid" formulation is only true in the rhetorical rather than technical sense.Agent00f (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't stress this enough, the "new" format would not prevent any article that is properly sourced from existing in any way. I think this is the point that keeps getting missed. It would allow events that are future, or didn't get enough coverage, to still exist in the omnibus, rather than be completely erased outright. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't think people are necessarily missing this entirely. If users graded solution on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being deletion and 10 being the status quo, the omnibus might be a 7. IOW, much better than 1 but not quite as good as the original. The various objections to this pretty nonsensical way of organizing MMA info have already been stated, and it can be deduced from your replies thus far that these are simply less important than accommodating a (vocal) specific reading of broad guidelines. AFAICT, this basically solves the objection that single pages don't contain enough stuff by cramming a bunch all together so it crosses some arbitrary threshold. It's not the worst way to go about it, but IMO seems more like a face-saving measure (again, not direct towards you but rather the process as a whole) than rationally justifiable decision. Agent00f (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In regard to what you're saying, Dennis, I think most everyone appreciates the work you're doing on this project. I don't think there's any need for rush. At the risk of repeating myself, one point, on the aspect of 'satisfying the largest number of people.' I really do think utility has to play a part in determining the eventual guideline/policy. I don't mean usability this time. What I mean is, it is really worth spelling out HOW the different groups are being satisfied from the compromise. If one group is getting great utility from the pages, and the other group gets virtually no utility from their removal or compression, I think regardless of the numbers (and those are self-evident), one side's arguments command more attention. If we're talking about the Project, I don't get the impression that it exists in and of itself. People who are claiming to want these pages gone for the sake of the Project, seem caught up on what their idea of the project should be. An inflexible approach on such a topic seems a betrayal of the Wikipedia ethos. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So the new format will allow individual articles as long as they are properly sourced. But it seems as though even if we add reliable sources, these editors will still say that it is not notable because it did not have a long-lasting effect on society. Portillo (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And here we go again...

Well, while everyone is trying to figure out the best process, user Newmanoconnor has taken it upon himself to nominate 8 more UFC pages for deletion. Sigh. Udar55 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I put up an ANI notice here and notified all those I mentioned. Anyone else feel free to add to the discussion. I'm not entirely sure he even knows what he is doing as he appears to have only been here for 16 days or so. Udar55 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made a request at the ANI to hold off, as a personal favor. He is under no obligation to do so, of course. I wish I was faster about this, but I'm actually trying to cook up an idea that might be consistent with what everyone wants, subject to everyone's approval of course. This has been a trial by fire for me, and you all have no idea how appreciative I am of the fact that everyone is getting along better and beginning to trust each other's motives. Yes, it gets snippy from time to time, but that is part of the process and we just need to keep assuming good faith of each other and keep working on the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, now that I'm on the same page with the other hard working guys here, Where do things stand, this page is a mess. It might be good to summarize where things are?

Also, Udar55 , in an effort to show I'm not trying to stir @#$! up, I was about to nominate a host of Bamma pages, 6 or so, do you have an issue with that? I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you've argued that Bamma and other promoters do not meet notability requirements for stand alone pages compared to UFC? Now I'm not gonna nominate anything until Dennis says it's ok, but I'd like you opinionNewmanoconnor (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with BAMMA individual event pages being AfD. Udar55 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • Just look up and read. We are at the part where we are picking up all the random pieces and trying to figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion, but AfD is generally seen as adversarial. Take a look at WP:BEFORE as it offers some suggestions on alternatives (Such as proposing a Merge of the content) to lessen the impact that Deletion typically engages. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)