- UFC 148 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The original UFC 148 and UFC 148: Silva vs. Sonnen II pages were deleted due to lack of content, sources, etc. It was then merged and redirected to the page 2012 in UFC events. And all of the prose written on the UFC 148 section of the 2012 in UFC events article was written by me. The original UFC 148 article that was deleted had very little information. I was advised by admin user:Scottywong to write a draft of the new UFC 148 article in my userspace, and then file a request here. Here is the article I drafted: User:Gamezero05/UFC 148 sandbox. I added a lot more prose, a lot more information, and gathered a more wide-range of sources such as those from the LA Times, USA Today, ESPN, London Free Press, Las Vegas Sun, Yahoo!, etc. I am requesting to make a new stand-alone article for UFC 148. Gamezero05 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close and redirect, nothing has changed in the 20 days since the close, the event is still a routine sports event that has not happened, in fact UFC 147 is still to happen. WP is not a sports newspaper or a stats websource nor is it a place for for gossip and rumor. There will be some fights here, some winners and losers but no indication that anything of encyclopedic note will happen. So until the event actually happens, cover the event in 2012 in UFC events, once the event has happened and secondary sources (as opposed to primary news sources) exist that can establish the event does have enduring notability as per WP:NOT come back here then. Mtking (edits) 03:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. We have divided opinion over MMA events. What shifted the balance of this one is that it is a future event. But since the event will be held tomorrow on the 7th, discussion of it on that basis will be moot. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I may comment later, but, as MtKing just reminded me, I seem to be a month out of sync with the rest of the world; it'll be July 7. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Disagreement with the outcome, standing alone, does not justify a DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit draft move to article space - The event not happening yet AND all these reliable sources writing about it makes a stronger argument for meeting WP:GNG than the event happening with the same amount of coverage. The AfD closer noted on 11 May 2012 that "Not even one argument to keep the article is based in policy," so the addition of the reliable sources to the 8 June 2012 draft overcome that issue. WP:NOT#NEWS might apply if the reliable source coverage of the July 7, 2012 event were limited to July 7, 2012 or breaking news there near. Comment: I can't see "Gamezero05" name (please change the color of your sig color) and the gold color of "Mtking" sig is hard to see as well (please change your sig color). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Very good point Uzma Gamal. One that I have not thought of before. The fact that this event has many respectable independent sources months away from the event shows that it is notable. You can't say that for routine events such as a regular season baseball or football game. Gamezero05 22:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit draft move to article space per accurate analysis by Uzma Gamal. We already have enough secondary sources to say this event is notable. Cavarrone (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit recreation There are certainly enough non-MMA sources in the article to show notability. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse That the draft article has WP:NOT no place in the encyclopedia is shown by the fact that it would need a major rewrite within a month. For example, it uses the words, "upcoming event", "will feature", "setting the stage for", "most anticipated", "is now expected to face", and "will take place at". If there was actually something encyclopedic here, it would not change or change little on July 7, and might have a title, "Preparation for UFC 148". Instead we get newspaper-type coverage such as that Dominic Cruz has a torn rotator cuff, where this one point is the most significant material in the entire article. An encyclopedia has little interest in announcements of possible future events, we just wait for the future. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The background information leading up to the actual event is notable in and of itself, based on the fact that there are plenty of secondary sources months out from the actual event. If it is already this notable, the notability is only going to increase. Just because the actual event has not happened yet does not mean the stuff surrounding the event also has not happened yet. Plenty of information surrounding the actual event has already happened, and it is notable based on all of the independent secondary sources. Gamezero05 17:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for changing the color of your sig. Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the first sentence of the nutshell of WP:N,
Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons.
Two things to note there, "over a period of time", and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Pre-event hype is ephemeral and thus fails the requirement of attracting attention "over a period of time". Next is that WP:N does not override WP:NOT. Three relevant aspects of WP:NOT are: WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. The mention that this is a "pay-per-view" future event IMO fails WP:NOT. Listing UFC 147 as a "previousevent" cannot be WP:V sourced given that UFC 147 has yet to occur. To be timeless, the material would need to use wording like, "As of 9 June 2012, the event was scheduled for the "MGM Grand Garden Arena.[citation] According to a blog written on 1 June 2012 on ESPN,[citation] "Franklin isn’t buried in the stacked UFC 148 deck. He’ll be fighting in his first main event since UFC 115". Uhh, the "stacked UFC 148 deck"? What happened to that analysis in the draft article? And why does the ESPN citation not clearly mark that this is a blog? (As per the title bar, the title is "Company man Franklin answers call again. Mixed Martial Arts Blog. ESPN".) IMO, most or too much of this draft is newspaper-routine future-event promotion, with no timeless value, and violates WP:NOT. IMO, in order to gain the perspective of time, this article should not be re-created before two weeks after 7 July 2012. Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel you are completely misrepresenting WP:NOTCRYSTAL. UFC 148 does NOT fail WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The very first paragraph of WP:NOTCRYSTAL states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." In addition to that, it goes on to state: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."
- So there are a few points I'd like to make now knowing this information. Let's run down the list and see if UFC 148 qualifies.
- 1. This anticipated event IS verifiable, and the subject matter IS of sufficiently wide interest. That is evidenced not only by the massive page views of UFC event articles leading up to an event, and not only is the middleweight world championship fight and the interim bantamweight championship of the world on the UFC 148 card, but it is also one of, if not the biggest UFC event of the year. In addition to that, it has received plenty of independent coverage from sources such as USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Las Vegas Sun, ESPN, and plenty more. For an event to receive independent coverage for something over a month away clearly shows there is sufficiently wide-interest and it also shows notability.
- 2. I have included reported discussion and argumetns about the prospects for success of the event. "It is one of the most anticipated matches in UFC history". "The previous fight of this rematch won the fight of the year". "Ortiz/Griffin one of the most anticipated rubber matches". Etc. I can find even more and attribute them to specific people as quotes, if that would help.
- 3. The event is clearly notable and is almost certain to take place. I don't think it is a question as to whether or not this event will take place. Preparation is already in progress, and any speculation is well documented.
- So there is really no reason that this event should not be included, as it clearly passes WP:NOTCRYSTAL. WP:NOTCRYSTAL was not really talking about future events not being notable. It was talking about WHICH future events ARE notable. And UFC 148 clearly passes based on those guidelines. Gamezero05 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. You're first of all responding to an argument I didn't make. Next, WP:NOT is about what Wikipedia is not, and it does not replace WP:N for what Wikipedia is. If we allow Wikipedia to be used for pre-event promotions, of which this draft has that appearance, we'll be distracted from our goal of creating an encyclopedia. There is no deadline at Wikipedia, and the thing to do here is to wait until a couple of weeks after the event, and then there is no need for the current protracted discussion. Is there a purpose to having this article on Wikipedia before the event? Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I responded to the argument you made. You said that UFC 148 fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I proved that that is incorrect. UFC 148 does NOT fail WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It doesn't matter that "you don't like it" as your reasoning for not wanting this article as part of the encyclopedia. I demonstrated through policy that an article like UFC 148 is absolutely acceptable under the rules. Gamezero05 16:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having trouble explaining how this draft should not be considered as promotion? Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly is not promotion. Here, let's run down WP:NOTPROMOTION, and I'll prove it. It says content on Wikipedia is not for:
- 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.
- 2. Opinion pieces.
- 3. Scandal mongering.
- 4. Self-promotion.
- 5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable.
- So, for #1, UFC 148 has nothing to do with advocacy, propaganda or recruitment. The article is reported from an objective point of view, so it passes regardless. #2,#3, and #4 don't even apply. With #5, the article is written in an objective style from a neutral point of view. It is simply the background information for the event, much like there is background information for a video game like Call of Duty: Black Ops II, which will be released 6 months from now. There is really no reason why the biggest UFC event of the year (UFC 148) shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Gamezero05 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So now its "the biggest UFC event of the year"? I checked the draft and that point is not mentioned there. Call of Duty: Black Ops II is an interesting example, but I know from personal knowledge that this topic has jumped into the mainstream media. A Google news search shows hundreds of articles, many within the past week. WP:NOTPROMOTION says, "Wikipedia is not a...vehicle for...advertising... This applies to articles..." It also says, "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." Arguing that "There is really no reason...<the topic> shouldn't have a stand-alone article" is misdirection, since we are not discussing here whether or not there should be a stand-alone article. The issue is whether we should have a pre-event stand-alone article filled with newspaper-routine future-event promotion, with a scheduled obsolescence date. There is no deadline at Wikipedia, we just need to wait three-five weeks, and this problem will be solved. Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The UFC 148 article is not a vehicle for advertising. It is simply stating facts about the event using secondary sources to do so. And the fact that this championship REMATCH is 2 years in the making means that there is a lot of information as to what happened in those two years. There has been a LOT written about this fight in those two years leading up to now. As I showed with games like Call of Duty: Black Ops II, it is quite common to have articles before something is available. It is not against WP policy to do so. If it is notable before it is available or before the actual event has happened, then it deserves a place in article space at that point in time. And UFC 148 is clearly already notable due to the independent secondary sources available months before the event, and articles talking about the anticipated rematch dating back to 2 years ago. Gamezero05 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit draft to move to article space This is a huge event and should be given an opportunity to have its article built up to quality status. What exactly is the cost of allowing a few weeks for editors to build the article for this event? Why does it have to be shut down before it can even be beefed up?I remember halloween (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit draft move to article space Huge event covered by many media outlets deserves its own space to not clutter up the rest of the 2012 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.196 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit recreation. Nothing wrong with the original result, but the sources in the draft go far enough beyond the trivial WP:ROUTINE-type announcements that I basically agree with Uzma on this. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a month and see what happens - Mostly per Unscintillating above. I don't feel as if the non-MMA sources in the draft article are much more than routine coverage of an anticipated event, discussing routine things like venue changes, event changes, injuries, etc. My vote is to wait for the actual event to happen (in less than a month), and then decide what to do. Full disclosure: I was the closing admin on the original AfD, but that shouldn't make much of a difference in this case. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is routine? The way you are describing "routine" means that hardly anything would pass your requirement. Not even the Super Bowl since the Super Bowl happens every single year and has the same "routine" coverage it always has. The things discussed are who might win, talk about their seasons, injury reports, etc. It's always the same. What you are basically saying is that only "one-time" events can pass your definition of "routine". Gamezero05 17:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: Is your argument that UFC 148 is receiving an equivalent level of coverage to Super Bowl XLVII? -Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. My argument is that based on your definition of "routine", all Super Bowls are also "routine". Gamezero05 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But having just clicked on the link for the NEXT Super Bowl, I'd say there is a lot more information about UFC 148 compared to Super Bowl XLVII. That article is basically only talking about how New Orleans was selected as the host city. UFC 148 is one of, if not the biggest UFC event of the year. The UFC Fan Expo is also taking place in Vegas for the weekend of the fight. It is a big event for MMA. Gamezero05 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the Superbowl article only contains information that is actually notable. It is restricted to facts that will not become any less notable over time, like the record advertisement pricing, the fact that GM won't be advertising because of high prices, setting the record for most Superbowls in a metro area, the fact that holiday schedules are being modified to accomodate it, etc. The UFC 148 draft article only talks about routine things like schedule conflicts, who's fighting who, when the last time was that they fought and the result, who is injured and can't fight, which fights are "long-awaited", etc. This is the difference between a fancruft event announcement article and an actual encyclopedia article on a notable topic. Regardless, this is devolving into an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which isn't helpful. My opinion is that this article should remain a redirect, and that we should reevaluate the topic after the event takes place to see if anything has changed with the notability of the event. I have my opinion, you have yours. It doesn't sound like we're going to change each other's minds, so I'm probably not going to continue to try. -Scottywong| confer _ 18:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you find the Super Bowl article notable because they list 3 facts? The planned price a commercial may cost, possible changes in holiday schedule, and that New Orleans will host the Super Bowl the most times? Come on... I'm sure even you know you are reaching. So should I go try and find some mundane facts about UFC 148? Gamezero05 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, when did I say the Superbowl was notable because its article lists exactly 3 facts? I'm confused. The problem is that you've already found too many mundane facts about UFC 148, because those are the only type of facts that exist about it at this point. The fact that the commercials that will be aired during the next Superbowl might be the most expensive commercials of all time is not what I would consider to be a mundane fact. The notability of an event is not determined by the quantity of facts you can say about it, but the quality of those facts. Is UFC 148 expected to break any records for anything? I'm not saying that that's a requirement, but I think that trying to compare a run-of-the-mill UFC event (the 17th such event of this year, and it's only June) to the most-watched sporting event in American history is what I would call "reaching". -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the next Super Bowl been watched yet? The answer is no. So how can you call it the most watched event? Secondly, how important is the most expensive commercial really? Plus, you said yourself that it is not a requirement to break records for something to be notable. But in fact, yes, there is talk of the headlining fight of UFC 148 being the biggest and/or most anticipated fight IN UFC HISTORY. Here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/silva-vs-sonnen-ii-most-151442087--mma.html The article states " at UFC 148, are we poised to see the greatest rivalry in UFC history finally come to a close? Mike Roberts of MMA Inc. believes this fight will definitely be one for the books. “I believe it is. I don't know if it's the biggest fight in UFC history, but I do believe it's the most anticipated fight in UFC history. The only one that I could rival to that would be the first Chuck Liddell/Tito Ortiz fight,” Roberts told MMAWeekly Radio. “I believe this one's going to surpass that by attendance and pay-per-view buys.” The stage is set for Silva vs. Sonnen II to be one of the biggest pay-per-views of the year, and there's no doubt it's one of the most hotly contested rematches in history." The fact that you don't realize how big this fight is shows to me that you are ignorant of the sport, and makes me question how you can judge if it is notable or not. P.S... this is the 7th UFC pay-per-view event of the year (their big shows). Events like UFC on Fuel TV, UFC on FOX, or UFC on FX are the more run-of-the-mill events. Gamezero05 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you not see that quotes by "Mike Roberts of MMA Inc." are the opposite of independent? What do you think Mike Roberts of MMA Inc. would say when you ask him if this event (which presumably is going to make him a lot of money) is going to be popular? Do you think he'd say, "Meh, it'll probably be pretty mediocre." And being the "most anticipated" fight is not breaking a record. There is no way to quantitatively measure anticipation. I may be ignorant of MMA (which doesn't disqualify my opinions, btw), but this discussion is going nowhere because you are clearly ignorant of the way Wikipedia works (and unwilling to listen/learn). So, I will concede to you the last word. Enjoy it. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, how about an independent source like the Las Vegas Sun? The writer of the article, Case Keefer, states, "Despite recent rumors to the contrary, injuries have not affected UFC 148's middleweight championship main event. The most anticipated rematch in UFC history, Anderson Silva vs. Chael Sonnen II, is still on." http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/09/ufc-148-las-vegas-loses-title-fight-between-urijah/ Or Los Angeles Times/Bleacher Report: "At UFC 148, in one of the most anticipated fights in MMA history, Anderson Silva and Chael Sonnen will go head-to-head in a grudge match for the ages." http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1213026-ufc-148-why-you-should-support-anderson-silva Or how about a really independent and random source like Breitbart TV... writer Arlen Delgado reviews the Anderson Silva documentary "Like Water" and talks about upcoming events: "The two will face off again next month at UFC 148, hence the aptly timed documentary release date. As if this rematch were not already one of the most anticipated events in combat sport's history, "Like Water" bumps up the excitement and interest level even further." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/03/like-water-movie-review How about Sports Illustrated? They are pretty independent. Loretta Hunt states, "It's five weeks out from the biggest fight of the summer and you can almost see Chael Sonnen pacing his Oregon living room, scribbling down snarky one-liners about UFC middleweight champion Anderson Silva." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/loretta_hunt/06/05/anderson.silva/index.html#ixzz1xX5jqg19 It seems everybody is calling this the most anticipated rematch, one of the most anticipated fights, and/or biggest fights. One writer even called it one of the most anticipated events in combat sport's history... that includes boxing and everything. It appears you don't want to see it as such. And I attribute that to the fact that you are ignorant of the sport and don't try to listen/learn anything about it. If you did try to learn, you would realize that this event is certainly notable already. Gamezero05 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, Gamezero is cleaning house in this argument.I remember halloween (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysis of the sources posted in the previous post:
- Our Bleacher Report article shows a criticism about the media, "I worry that good writers there just get lumped in with the bad ones…and it’s hard as a casual reader to really tell the difference. Nedu Obi as per the red link is not recognized by Wikipedia as a wp:notable author. The sentence quoted is the only sentence in the article about UFC 148, this is a bare mention that would allow at most one sentence to be written about UFC 148, even if the source or author is deemed reliable. And in that case the sentence would fail WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.
- The Las Vegas Sun article calls the event a "promotion", which provides a source to document that we have a WP:NOTPROMOTION issue. It fosters the idea that the Las Vegas Sun will have an "anticipated" report after July 7. The article headline draws attention to the fact that the fifth and last sentence of the lede of the draft article will never have happened, "The co-main event features a bantamweight battle between #2 ranked Ultimate Fighter: Live coach Urijah Faber, and #3 ranked contender Renan Barão for the Interim Bantamweight Championship.[2]". And careful reading of the article explains that this is because UFC 148 is being reduced to support UFC 149 in Calgary. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the notability of either event, the promoters they are just trying to provide entertainment, the show must go on, just like the previous sixteen this year. This is the only article here that is more than a passing mention for UFC 148, more like three passing mentions, with some added negative attention by being slighted in favor of UFC 149, and throw in some "in depth" for the Sun tracking three otherwise unrelated card changes. Back to the question of, is there anything in this article that is not WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and IMO the answer is no. For example, the world at large over a period of time will not care that the Faber-Barao fight was moved two weeks, this is WP:ROUTINE news and an example of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT.
- The www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/03/like-water-movie-review movie review is...a movie review. Yes, it mentions UFC 148 twice. This is borderline trivial, you can write one sentence about UFC 148 from this article. And the sentence that you can write, "As of June 5, 2012 Silva vs. Sonnen
iswas scheduled July 7 at UFC 148" fails WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.
- Los Angeles Times. This is listed as a reference, but it isn't linked to anything.
- Sports Illustrated. Interestingly, this author defines the issue in terms of our WP:N guideline. Here is the only sentence in the article about UFC 148, "There's little doubt that Sonnen's relentless self-promotional antics will earn him the lion's share of attention leading up to his rematch with Silva at UFC 148 on July 7 in Las Vegas." That which is getting the "lion's share" of attention is a fighter, not the event. Notability is not inherited. This UFC 148 mention itself is in passing. Like previous articles, there is only enough wp:notability about the event to write one sentence, and the one sentence that could be written fails WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points I'd like to make.
- 1. I only used those sources here to show what writers are saying about UFC 148. You cannot deny that they are calling it the biggest rematch in UFC history, the most anticipated fight in UFC history, and even the biggest fight in combat sports history. That is a fact that writers have said that. I am not using those sources in the article, so it doesn't matter that those things are mentioned in passing. It was only to show you HERE that it is a notable event.
- 2. You are saying an article referred to the event as a "promotion", and therefore it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. I'm sorry, but this shows how ignorant you are on the sport. UFC, as in the company, is referred to as a "promotion". That is what it is called because they are in the business of making and promoting fights. In boxing, there are promotion companies like Golden Boy, Top Rank, Mayweather Promotions, etc. That has NOTHING to do with WP:NOTPROMOTION. It is ridiculous that you would event make a connection like that. Gamezero05 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What has anyone said about UFC 148 that is worth saying before the event? What is the parking plan? Have they hired off-duty policemen? Who is singing the national anthem? What price is being paid for the Las Vegas venue? How far are people going to drive to get there? Who are the decision makers behind the scenes? Was it hard to convince the fighters on the card to compete? Are the fighters being ground into poverty by ruthless promoters, or is the fighter's union so strong that the beleaguered promoters are about to throw in the towel?
- Or is this event getting the local attention like that that went to the Nevada State High School Boys and Girls Swimming and Diving Championships, "LAS VEGAS, Nevada, May 22. EIGHT state records fell during the Nevada State High School Swimming and Diving Championships, which were held May 19 in Las Vegas.ref.
- The encyclopedia doesn't care about hype, it is ephemeral and fails WP:NOT. The encyclopedia doesn't like promotion, we are volunteers after all. This article can wait for three to five weeks. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your attempt to reduce the significance to ridiculous proportions is one big logical fallacy. And I have already proven to you that UFC 148 passes WP:NOT. I took it sentence by sentence and made it easy for you. You can say it fails all you want, but I already proved that it does not. Gamezero05 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote above states, "You cannot deny that they are calling it...the biggest fight in combat sports history." It appears that "they" in this case is not a writer, but a 27-11 UFC fighter, one with a felon conviction, a suspension for drug use, accused of false testimony by a senior sports official, and also known with "Sonnen trash talked during the build up to the fight". Also, the current trash talk was making the point that it didn't matter that the fight was being moved from Brazil, and UFC 148 was only mentioned by date. Ref: “We will be the biggest sporting event in the history of combat,” Sonnen said., ref. Summary: trash talk is not a reliable source. Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? The "they" I was referring to was the writer from Breitbart.com, Arlen Delgado. How you got Chael Sonnen from that, I have no idea. And even though this next point is unrelated, I'll bite. You're trying to make him out as some kind of "thug" by saying he is a convicted felon, was suspended for drug use, supplying false testimony, etc. He was a real estate agent, and during the sale of a house he sent a $60,000 kickback to a homebuyer. His punishment was 2 years probation and a fine. That suspension for drug use wasn't a suspension for drug use at all. He was prescribed testosterone replacement therapy by his doctor because of low testosterone. He didn't PROPERLY disclose this information to the athletic commission and they busted him for it. He told them and made them aware that he was on TRT before the fight, but he did not file the proper paperwork. So it was a disclosure issue. That is why his suspension (which would normally be 1 year for a drug offense) was only 6 months... 6 months is basically nothing seeing as fighters normally take at least 4 months between fights. But really, all that is irrelevant. I just thought you should get your facts straight. Gamezero05 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just about any source, no matter how reliable or indepth is considered "routine". The argument has lost all meaning. Portillo (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Went through the sources. They seem on the light side. That said, [1] appears to be a reliable (if darn specialized) source and some of the others are too. I'm not seeing a promotional problem here. Editorially I'd prefer we go with the list article for now and break this out after the event occurs (and we have something to actually write about). Either call is perfectly reasonable but I'd lean toward move to mainspace as it meets WP:N now and it will be a solid article in a month. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you feel about "incubate" until seven days after the event? Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mixed. There will be coverage and the coverage thus far (before the event) means that it _will_ have sustained coverage. I'd have preferred the article be created after the event, but I feel an article now meets our inclusion guidelines (just not how I'd handle it). So I'm okay with the outcome you suggest, but don't think the guidelines require it and so DRV/AfD really shouldn't be controlling here. It's an editorial decision where the outcome you suggest (effectively keeping it merged for now) belongs on the talk page rather than DRV. Hope that made sense. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this even still up for debate? This is way more clear cut than the AfDs that we saw for the 2012 in UFC events and that got Speedy Keeped in like 30 minutes every single time. The level of bias amongst the admins that I see is absolutely absurd.I remember halloween (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
