Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 30: Difference between revisions

Administrator instructions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:02, 7 January 2013

< 2012 December 29

Deletion review archives: 2012 December

2012 December 31 >

30 December 2012

Battle of the Line (closed)

Battle of the Line – I have decided that when I close DRVs I will give much less weight to opinions that are substantially attacks on other editors rather than reasoned analysis of the close/consensus. Dream Focus and Jclemens' votes therefore have not counted towards this close alhough the outcome is quite clear Close Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I feel this close on "keep" is incorrect. All of the "keep" arguments amont to merely claiming sources are sufficient instead of explaining why they'd be so (as it is stated in WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy). Which is extremely weak considering it has been pointed out in the discussion that most sources are either primary or fundamentally trivial (ie one-sentence mentions only), thus failing our notability guideline, and the "keep" supporters chose to avoid adressing that issue (making them voters rathers than participants in a debate).
The closing admin, on his talk page, admitted to have given more weight to "the number of people who found the sources to be sufficient" than to the actual argument based on the primary and trivial nature of the sources (and the lack of answer from keep supporters). Which directly contradicts WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CLOSEAFD.
In my opinion, the closing admin should have acknowledged the strength of the "delete" arguments and the weakness of the "keep" side, one way or another, and failed to do so. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin While AFD is not a vote count, the magnitude of support for a reasonable interpretation of policy can include the number of people holding that interpretation. If several established editors found the sourcing to be sufficient and there is not a clearly wrong application of policy in their reasoning, that would and was grounds to retain the article. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, but that primary and trivial sources would be sufficient to make an article notable is a clearly wrong interpretation, since it's the very opposite of what WP:GNG states. I'm not saying that numbers shouldn't be taken into account, but that they are only one of the things to consider, the other being the pure strength of arguments (which has nothing to do with numbers) regarding the consensus stated in our policies and guidelines. If the keep side is obviously going against the notability criteria that have been decided by consensus, then it should also have been taken into account, one way or another.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: neither the article nor the deletion review discussion were tagged as recommended in steps 5 and 6 of the deletion review process; I have added the DELREV templates in both cases.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close is a supported consensus read, within discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 7 people said to KEEP it, giving good rational why. An editor who was blocked for using sockpuppets in AFDs for fictional things, nominates this for deletion along with a horde of other things. Another editor says "Delete - WP:FANCRUFT" without saying anything more. So that's two editors who basically said "I don't like it". The third and final editor that wants this deleted is Folken de Fanel, who argues with everyone in the AFD, then brings it to deletion review when they don't get their way. Consensus was clear, Keep was the right close. Dream Focus 22:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds more like a personal rant as to why Dream Focus doesn't like me than a proper DRV comment. Please keep personal matters where they belong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and sanction nominator. Folken de Fanel has demonstrated a repeated inability to accept that his definitions of what level of sourcing is necessary to support the notability of fictional elements do not enjoy community support. This is not the first time he's brought such a frivolous complaint here. Thus, it would be reasonable to forbid Folken de Fanel from bringing additional DRVs on fictional element AfD closures he dislikes. The sourcing present before the item was nominated demonstrates that the fictional element is adequately covered in independent RS'es, and there was no actual justification for re-nominating it in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My rationale is sufficiently developed for anyone to see it is not "frivolous", and DRV is accessible to anyone considering an AfD close was incorrect, so I don't see why I should be "sanctionned" for starting a DRV that doesn't follow Jclemens's opinion. My definition of the level of sourcing required enjoyed community support many times against Jclemens's. Had we sanctionned Jclemens each time he said "keep" on an AfD that ended on "delete" or "merge", I don't think he'd have had much occasions to contribute, fortunately for him Wikipedia doesn't discriminate users according to their opinions. DRV is not the appropriate venue to sanction people or to make false accusation of bad behavior. The item nominated is not adequately covered in independent RSes and that's why it was nominated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You still aren't understanding that the issue isn't you having different opinions than policy, it's that you refuse to accept when other editors make a decision that doesn't align with yours, that it's consensus. Please show me a single fictional element DRV that you have raised which has even equivocal support. As far as I am aware, you have never made any such DRV request which has achieved anything other than unanimous or near-unanimous endorsement of the original outcome. That is why I suggest you be prevented from wasting DRV's time and effort in the future. It probably won't happen this time, but unless you learn to graciously accept being overruled on your interpretations, it will probably come up sooner or later. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close Consensus was clear and within reasonable interpretation of policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the close reflected the consensus reached in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse-ish - at least plausibly meets WP:N, headcount favours keep. Could conceivably been closed as no consensus (I might've done so), but it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. WilyD 10:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close- the discussion could not have ended any other way. But strongly denounce the attacks on the nominator by Dream Focus and Jclemens; the former is a personal attack and cheap shot, the latter is another example of Jclemens's intolerance for dissent. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to trade insults or resolve interpersonal disputes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The previous !vote references animal excrement in the edit comment. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? Reyk _YO! 01:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you saying you want this explained? Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 00:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The humorous thing here is that accusing me of intolerance for dissent is both ad hominem and untrue. If I were intolerant of dissent, you would see me DRV'ing things left and right where my opinion wasn't in the majority and didn't carry the day, like Folken de Fanel has done here. Only... I can't think of a single time I've ever done that. When I disagree with a close strongly enough, I politely go to the closing admin and try and find a working consensus, which tends to work reasonably well for me. The reason I've advocated sanctioning Folken de Fanel is because I have yet to see him demonstrate the capability to modify his views based on community feedback. Note that we still have not one single other user agreeing with Folken de Fanel's objection here, and that's the real problem: the repeated Quixotic belief that he's the only one who correctly perceives giants in the face of the rest of the community calling them windmills. Under AfD conventions (24+ hours, no one but the nominator arguing his side, six or more opposing), this review could be WP:SNOWed close at this point.Jclemens (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sanctions are intended to deal with disruption. You are suggesting someone be punished for refusing to budge from an unpopular viewpoint, which implies that you consider dissent disruptive. Actually I think there is much merit in what FdF is saying even though it's not enough for me to vote to overturn this particular close. Given that you've previously told Folken that disagreeing with you is like a mental illness that requires professional help, I suggest you stop commenting on him altogether. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, actually, I told him that complaining that I was stalking him to an AfD that I'd posted in well over a day prior to his first post indicated that either he was editing too fast and being sloppy, or he had reality perception problems. Rather than admit the first, he chose to take issue with the second. While ongoing WP:IDHT behavior does seem to make the latter more plausible, I still fundamentally believe he was simply being careless, but absolutely refused to admit it because he was trying to argue that he was right in rapidly redirecting a ton of fictional elements articles without discussion. At no point did I ever say anything remotely equivalent to your erroneous summary of the situation. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, when Jclemens doesn't agree with an AfD close, he goes ranting on and on in talk pages behind the closing admin's back about how the close was "non-policy-supported" (yeah, talk about "politely going to the closing admin"...) , calls "disruptive" anyone who didn't agree with him in the AfD because they "didn't get it" and accuses them of all being "sockpuppets" anyway (without any checkuser backing that, of course), suggest to just ignore the outcome and have his own way with the articles...If that's how Jclemens "accepts when other editors make a decision that doesn't align with yours", then I proudly refuse to act like that.
        And yes, Reyk reported your words accurately, you called me "mentally ill" because I disagreed with your interpretation of your behavior toward me. Just like others are "sockpuppets" and "disruptive" because they don't !vote the way you want them to in AfDs. How long do you think you can keep this up ? Do you really think this (I mean the huge mess that this DRV has become thanks to you) is gonna convince anyone that you don't have some kind of personal issue with me that constantly creeps up in your contributions ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You can put together all sorts of irrelevant diffs, but not a single one to substantiate "you called me 'mentally ill'"--and why not? Because it never happened. The only "mess" in this DRV is... the fact that you opened it in the first place, without a shred of policy-based support, which has still not gathered a single "overturn". Just like last time, predictably, and that predictability is why I choose to call your participation disruptive. Prove me wrong about your inability to learn from your mistakes: Withdraw this DRV and admit your interpretation of notability policy lacks community support, and thus help clean up the mess you've made. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "is yet another instance where you look like you are not accurately perceiving reality [...] I suggest you seek appropriate mental health counseling.", "insufficient reason for me to neglect the possibility that you might indeed be experiencing some sort of mental illness". If you're not happy about how Reyk and I paraphrased you, you can always go and complain to WP:ANI, and we'll see what they think of these diffs.
        Anyone reading my rationale will see it is exclusively based on policy, how the people who vote here interpret or misinterpret policy is their problem, not mine. But DRV is a possibility given to all users to contest an AfD close, so I don't see why I shouldn't use it, just because it doesn't go the way you want. As I said, I prefer going to DRV rather than insulting closing admins and participants as you do. Contributors are still free to have the opinion they want on WP and advocate it; so be glad inclusionism is no more a blockable offense than deletionism (and have the decency not to pretend you're not predictable in AfDs). I will not submit to your bullying, my interpretation of notability policy has been supported in various AfDs, and this DRV will be closed the way all DRV are supposed to be. If you have any more time to waste, go straight to WP:ANI because you won't accomplish anything here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The quote in full. "So for you to come here and complain that I'm following you... is yet another instance where you look like you are not accurately perceiving reality. Seriously, if you're going too fast and making avoidable mistakes, please slow down and be more careful. If you really believe this to be me persecuting you... I suggest you seek appropriate mental health counseling." At some point, one must consider whether an editor who flagrantly and intentionally violates WP:QUOTE#General guidelines with respect to another editor's writings ("editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source.") should have any standing at all in a debate. You excised a conditional statement ("If you really believe this to be me persecuting you...") in order to make my statement falsely appear unconditional. It's hard to imagine any defense of such an edit, since the conditional portion is the first half of the statement. And that level of premeditated selective quoting in an attempt to twist meanings to what you want policy to mean is not at all uncharacteristic of your interpretations of policy, is it? I guess I should thank you for providing in one place a perfect example why no argument you advance should be accepted without independent verification. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        But I mean it, Jclemens, if you believe you have been misrepresented, then go to WP:ANI. Ah, yes, that would mean telling other admins about how you "suggest" a user "to seek appropriate mental health counseling", and how you can't "neglect the possibility that [I]might indeed be experiencing some sort of mental illness", which certainly doesn't meet WP:NPA, right ? You say it's "hard to imagine any defense of such an edit" ? I'd rather say it's hard to imagine any defense of calling another user mentally ill, however "conditional" your try to make it sound, which is which you're so afraid of going to WP:ANI and of something called the boomerang effect. I have never twisted any policy meaning. Really, according to you, I'm guilty of so many supposed offenses that, at that point, it would be irresponsible of you not to take it to WP:ANI. That's the only way you could get rid of me, because you won't just bully me out of WP, I thought you'd have understood it by now. So, take your chance and end it, because the longer this discussion lasts, the more credibility you lose among your peers. You're the only one that is getting hurt, because you're the only one that has any status on WP to lose. It's not like I'm the only deletionist here, anyone could take up the fight. You either need to take your responsibilities and go to WP:ANI, or leave me alone and keep the little bit of credibility you still have...Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You offer no defense of your intentional misquote, and then admit that you're only doing this in hopes that I'll do something (or am already doing something, but I'm not sure what) to harm my reputation? Rather, I'd say that this is not a bad insight into what drives your Wikipedia participation. Certainly not the improving or creation of content, which I have yet to see from you, but rather the badgering of actual content improvers and creators. Compare the old version, before the first AfD nomination, to its current status. I've taken it from zero references to fifteen--not all of them reliable, but none sourced to the fictional universe's primary sources. I'm here to build content--not necessarily about things other people care about, but the things I find interesting--and to upgrade existing content to comply with our appropriately more stringent expectations than existed when such articles were first formed. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, two things: 1, unless WP:ANI rules otherwise, I haven't misquoted you and I will continue to say you called me "mentally ill", which is the absolute truth. Not happy with that ? You know where to go. 2, you're already harming your reputation with your never endings rants, and insults and false accusations. You've locked yourself in a vicious circle that only you can break. But that's merely a friendly advice, we can all watch your downfall while eating a pack of popcorn if you really want. And I told you, if you think my presence here is hurting WP in any way, then it is your duty to report me to WP:ANI. If you claim you're here to build content, then I suggest you to go somewhere else because as I've already told you, you're wasting your time here, you can't frighten me or bully me or anything else. I'll stay and I have no intention to change neither my opinion that non-notable articles don't improve WP and that getting rid of them is actual improvement, nor the nature of my contributions, if you think that's a blockable offense, report me to WP:ANI, or stop it before others start thinking you're not here to improve.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You do need a mirror. What you're saying about me is a fascinating insight into... you. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The same can be said of you. Even more so.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close as a reasonable read of both the quantity and quality of arguments. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but i don't see the quality you seem to be refering to, since all the keep arguments boil down to "let's ignore WP:GNG because we don't like it".Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, both numerically and on our tidal criteria which has become significant mention in two independent sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UFC 158 (closed)

UFC 158 – Opinions from SubSeven and Portillo have been discarded from the close. Beyond that, this is a tricky discussion to close. Only one participant has mentioned the current practise of redirecting/merge for these articles when it seems to me a that an emerging wider consensus might be relevant to the close. Otherwise, the absence of a clear threshold for having individual or omnibus added to a vociferous block of MMA advocates who flood discussions with weak to poor arguments with limited policy value makes the background to this discussion very uncomfortable. In this environment we cannot be surprised if there is no consistency to AFD closes if closing admins do not (or do not know enough about the history to) refer to a wider meta consensus in assessing votes. (Heck, there is a tendency to inconsistent closing in areas where we do have a wide consensus on standards). That this was closed as keep when other similar discussions have been closed as delete or merge/redirect is perfectly plausible given the closing admin's discretion and the state of the discussion when it ended. Personally I might have discarded a lot of the opinion/assertion votes but the closing admin has wide discretion around how they weight the opinions expressed.
What this does highlight is the total mess around the the current set of MMA articles & the absence of a clear consensus on how to deal with them. I am endorsing the close as any other reading of the discussion would be perverse.
I strongly recommend that there is a moratorium on further AFDs/DRVs for UFC events until after there has been a community wide RFC on the inclusion threshold. Once we have a clear standard to fall behind it will be much easier to deal with these articles consistently and with much less rancour. AFD/DRV isn't the right vehicle to thrash out the policy and turning it into a battlefield doesn't resolve anything does it? – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I feel the close of this AfD as keep is wrong as the failed to correctly weigh policy based arguments vs those that did not articulate their Keep !votes.

Specifically :

Willdawg111's argument is not based on policy or guideline;
192.249.47.202 argument is not based on policy or guideline;
176.254.114.25 argument is not based on policy or guideline;
JonnyBonesJones makes a claim to lasting significance, but offers no evidence for his assertion;
Killswitch Engage also makes a claim to lasting significance, but offers no evidence for his assertion;
Mkdw addresses WP:FUTURE but does not address the lack of routine sourcing;
The only !vote for keep that provided any sourcing was AutomaticStrikeout, here, however they are exactly the type of routine news reports that WP:NOT says are not sufficient for a stand alone article :
msn.foxsports.com News report following the press announcement of the event

sports.yahoo.com News report more focused on prior meets between two that never were.

www.sbnation.com Two lines saying when and where the event will happen

espn.go.com another news report following the press announcement of the event.

The article it's self has nothing on the significance of the event a point picked up on by TreyGeek and his comment.

Addressing the claims that a UFC title fight somehow makes the event have lasting significance, this is the very definition of what is routine for a sequentially numbered UFC event, every one has one, it is how they sell tickets, by last count they had about 154 in 2012.

I therefore believe a result of consensus keep is wrong and not based on policy. ✍ Mtking ✉ 00:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines for future events that will probably be notable when they happen are so subject to interpretation that any results can be justified by our guidelines, as is true with most guidelines that depend on interpreting "lasting significance" or "substantial coverage" (my preference for dealing with this would be fixed but arbitrary compromises for each type of articles) The results won't be any the worse than at present and it will save time and trouble. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Please note that this DRV has been inappropriately canvassed. In the event that *I* close this DRV (and I have closed most DRVs recently) I will explicitly discard any vote that fails to address policy directly or is in any way prejudicial to any other user. Keep it clean guys and girls if you want your vote to be counted. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lankiveil has made 23 contributions since MtKing posted User_talk:Lankiveil#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_158. If the closer is either unwilling or unable to explain the closing, then the AfD should be reclosed, and there is no need for further comment here. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mtking states that every UFC event has a title match (not true, not even close). He is aggressively trying to affect MMA notability policy without demonstrating any knowledge of the sport. --SubSeven (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - note votes that amount to ad homs and/or personal attacks will not be counted when this review is closed. Please consider removing your comment and trying for a policy-based argument that might carry some weight... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If pages are getting put into an omnibus right now, why is this article of all of them being kept? It's 2 1/2 months out and reasonably likely to be effected by injuries. Why are the standards for this stuff so haphazard and why are they implemented so inconsistently? Byuusetsu (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admins are expected to at least respond to inquiries about closes even if there is an eventual stalemate or impasse with the person questioning the close. If that has not occurred here, the AFD should be open to reclosure without prejudice to the existing close. MBisanz ^talk 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin did make two responses to my questions (see User Talk:Mtking#UFC 158) the first one claiming no editor other than myself had an issue with sourcing, I then replied on his talk page and he replied again on mine and after receiving no further replies after I posted for a third time on his talk felt I should come here. ✍ Mtking ✉ 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Thanks. In that case, I have no particular opinion on the DRV. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD was well participated, and couldn't have been closed any other way. Mtking's nomination here is an attempt to restart the deletion discussion. However, as the article is not actually offensive in any way, and as a clear AfD result should be given some respect, I don't think there is nearly a good reason to relist. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion for advice on renominating after an appropriate delay. The discussion should be much simpler in June 2013.
Alternatively, Mtking might be well-advised to seek a non-deletion solution. There never were good reasons to delete over merge&redirect anyway, and so it never belonged at AfD. Start a talk page about a merge and redirect to 2013 in UFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. Before I start, I want to point out how disappointed I am with the bad faith shown by User:Unscintillating in implying that I was unwilling or unable to explain the close. A more accurate explanation is that I was simply thinking the matter over to provide a considered response to this nomination, rather than providing a knee-jerk reaction. I'm not aware that there is any rule with DRV concerning a time limit that the closer must respond by (if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected). As has been pointed out, I also responded within minutes to initial questions regarding the close raised by the person who opened this DRV.

On the substantive matter of the discussion, the grounds that the discussion were brought on was that the sources provided did not indicate any lasting significance that the event would hold, citing WP:NOT. Such an argument is one that is subjective in nature, there is no objective way that one can measure whether an event will have a future impact. Therefore, we are forced to look at whether a consensus exists regarding the matter. In the discussion, a clear minority of editors agreed with the nominator that the event would not have any lasting impact. Despite good participation in the discussion, there was not a lot of people lining up and agreeing with the nominator. Under the circumstances, any "delete" close would have been incorrect as there was clearly no consensus that there were grounds to delete the article. Obviously this AFD does not preclude further discussion and consensus being formed on merging or redirecting the article at a later date.

Finally, I acknowledge that UFC has some rather dedicated fans. I am not one of them, I am not a fan of UFC, or any combat sports at all really (cricket is more my game). Any personal feelings I had about the subject did not interfere with my judgement on the close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

In effect, you're endorsing a faith-based version of the lasting-significance argument, then. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse First, the claim that "every event has a title fight" is blatantly false. Many events are sold on main events with number one contender fights or grudge fights. So we can throw that false claim out. Now, the main selling point of this event has been the bad blood between the two main event fighters (Georges St. Pierre and Nick Diaz). GSP requested Diaz over Hendricks <--- This source shows Dana White confirming that the champion requested Diaz over a prior confirmed number one contender, which is extremely unusual in the UFC and can be used to indicate the unusual nature of this event. Diaz will also be entering this fight on a one fight losing streak, and coming off a suspension, which is extremely rare as well as fighters usually need to win several fights in a row or actually fight after a suspension before a title shot is granted. Johnny Hendricks angry at GSP <--- This source also shows another developing storyline on this card. Johnny Hendricks had originally won a number one contender fight against Martin Kampmann. He goes off in this source, and will be featured on this card as well, creating an unusual dynamic. As well so far, this card features exclusively one division on the main card, although this may change. Single division cards are extremely rare. The fact this PPV is being sold on a combination of grudge and championship, along with two contender fights in the same division indicates lasting significance in the company, as the outcome of this card will set the stage for the future of the division. I feel these storylines warrant the inclusion of this page on wikipedia. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every event in 2012 (UFC 142,UFC 143,UFC 144,UFC 145,UFC 146,UFC 147,UFC 148,UFC 149,UFC 150,UFC 151,UFC 152,UFC 153,UFC 154,UFC 155) either had a championship bout or one scheduled. Every UFC so far event announced for 2013 (UFC 156,UFC 157,UFC 158) has one. ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing many UFC events in your oh so comprehensive list. --SubSeven (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are on about now, talk about spiting hairs, I have amended the text. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that every UFC event in 2012 has had a championship fight or had one scheduled is disingenuous at best and straight out false at worst. There are numerous UFC events missing from that list which featured no championship fights or ever had one scheduled on the card, for example UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida. BearMan998 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that, while the numbered events typically have championship fights scheduled, you're not taking into account weight divisions. This splits things up significantly. So yes, there were championship fights either on or scheduled for all of those events listed. But, in total, the highest defense rate of the year was an above average 3 for the Lightweight championship. Flyweight had 1, Bantamweight had 1, Featherweight had 1, Welterweight had 2, Middleweight had 1, Light Heavyweight had 2, Heavyweight had 2. The weight classes themselves could be considered their own leagues if you will. Each has their own separate ranking and championship, obviously. So your argument that each event has a title fight is flawed by the fact that each weight division only sees a title defense once every 5 months if that. Lightweight has been the only exception this year. THEDeadlySins (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to know why having articles for, uh, 14 UFC events a year is such an issue? There are more articles per year for pro wrestling events which get less viewers than the UFC and certainly have less lasting effects than UFC PPVs. Byuusetsu (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. The "Keep" arguments were almost all purest hogwash, being faith-based -- at best -- rather than evidence-based. And Smokey Joe's rationale above seems to substitute nose-counting for actual policy-based arguments. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are pretty extreme. Just one !voter, an IP who didn't sign, supported deletion. Even discounting every "keep" vote as policy-ignorant, no one challenged the "merge" votes. I just now discover Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which changes the picture somewhat. However, it is now a redirect to 2013 in UFC. Why not just redirect UFC 158 to 2013 in UFC? I can't support an overturn to "delete" when the AfD discussion doesn't support it. DRV is not a higher court so much as a process review. If the AfD participants are policy-ignorant, then they need education, not administrative overrule. I can't support a relist because there is no case for deletion over redirection. Endorse close but redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to 2013 in UFC (the page did not exist at the time of the close). I know from experience that any attempt at a Merge or redirect will be opposed by the fans and undone; take as an example the page logs for UFC 155 or UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier shows that, or have a read of the archives at WT:MMA countless of editors have explained what WP is not and nothing has changed. ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - an event getting substantial international press three months ahead of when it happens suggests to it's likely to have enduring notability, but trying to assess the truth of that matter at this time is completely hopeless. One cannot use a wild guess at what the future may hold to disregard the discussion. In the interim, meeting WP:N shifts the burden to producing a compelling argument for deletion (especially to do so over the headcount), and it wasn't done. WilyD 10:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the routine coverage of announcements that is excluded by policy . ✍ Mtking ✉ 11:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you bother to read them before judging them, no. WilyD 11:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did and they are the routine coverage that these sports event get. Which one shows the analyse of why the event will be of lasting significance. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given how grossly you're misrepresenting them, that you're unfamiliar with their content is the most charitable interpretation of your actions. If you prefer to insist that you're doing it out of maliciousness, I suppose that's your business. But either way, you need to stop. WilyD 09:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 147 and 153 did not have championship fights. Also, many UFC on FOX and FX shows did not feature title fights. Killswitch Engage (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 153, not 152. 152 had two. THEDeadlySins (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was running a few tabs trying to verify those and lost track. Amended. Killswitch Engage (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both 147 and 153 at one point did have championship fights scheduled (in the case of 147 - Anderson Silva vs Chael Sonnen and in 153 Erik Koch vs. José Aldo). ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which happened. If they had happened, an upcoming PPV (UFC 156) wouldn't be having a title fight and UFC 148 wouldn't have had a title fight (due to Dominick Cruz getting injured). Your original comment was that all events have title fights, which was wrong. Backtracking and trying to say that they all either had one or had one planned is irrelevant because the plans that got changed caused other events to change as well. That's not even pointing out the fact that the numbered events aren't the only events the UFC puts on (and may have actually been in the minority this year, I'm not sure) so that's almost less than half of the shows with a title fight. THEDeadlySins (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Event is inherently notable as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. "Some games or series are inherently notable, including...The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league". 76.103.153.126 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the community is well aware that Wikipedia is being used as part of the marketing effort for the small company that owns the UFC franchise. Online estimates that I could find for the size of Zuffa vary from 16 to 200. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp (dandb.com) was listing the number of employees at 16 last June, but no longer posts the info for free. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Zuffa, the promoting company is completely irrelevant. We are discussing the UFC. Please refrain from attempting to mislead other users. Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. My comment about Zuffa stands. Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what a ridiculous statement. these pages are clearly made by the fans and lovers of the sport. do you have any evidence of your acusation? 182.239.153.53 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place for propagating irrational conspiracy theories either, but you just did that. Byuusetsu (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the size of Zuffa is relevant to this discussion or how its marketing effort would even think to touch a website that's run by users (and is thus freely edited by a large portion of people from all over the world). That doesn't make any sense and brings absolutely nothing to this discussion, which is a review of the deletion discussion of UFC 158.

UFC had more than 16 fighters contracted last June...in fact there are about that many in one event. All these discussions and deletions are representative of breaking the Battleground policy on Wikipedia. Shame. 173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THEDeadlySins (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I stand by my statements in that this event has received more coverage than routine as its a title fight. Mkdw ^talk 07:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse An AfD closer should enforce the consensus. That clearly happened here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think Lankiveil closed this incorrectly, in the sense that I would have closed it as "delete". However, I think it's obvious that his close was within the range of admin discretion given the discussion.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its become very obvious since this crusade against UFC articles started, that Mtking has no interest in the arguments, as long as the article is deleted or merged. Portillo (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NPA. Focus on the discussion, not the nominator. Reyk _YO! 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in the event that I close this DRV the above vote will be entirely discounted. I have asked the editor to refactor their comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not retracting my statement, but I changed it to comment. Portillo (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Keep Two points. One, changing from single pages to one loaded page does nothing but cause linking errors and a mess. It also does nothing to fix the policy points raised by Kww, MTKing, TreyGeek, and the routine deletionists (no harm intended). Second, currently the UFC, its championship belts, and most employees represent the top tier of the sport. Due to there being no seasons in MMA the "playoffs" and "championships" are a continuous and dynamic "event". Considering the slow pace of MMA and the fact that more than four fights in a year for one fighter in MMA is notable then you should consider most if not all of UFC fights as being notable. I am begging the deletionists consider learning more about the sport, please. 173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the only "delete" !votes are the nominator and an IP, but seven editors with an account !vote "keep", a "delete" outcome would require both a minute analysis of policy and excellent evidence of bad faith in the discussion. This is a non-starter.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_30&oldid=531716214"

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 |-
 ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
-* '''[[:UFC 158]]''' – Opinions from SubSeven and Portillo have been discarded from the close. Beyond that, this is a tricky discussion to close. Only one participant has mentioned the current practise of redirecting/merge for these articles when it seems to me a that an emerging wider consensus might be relevant to the close. Otherwise, the absence of a clear threshold for having individual or omnibus added to a vociferous block of MMA advocates who flood discussions with weak to poor arguments with limited policy value makes the background to this discussion very uncomfortable. In this environment we cannot be surprised if there is no consistency to AFD closes if closing admins do not (or do not know enough about the history to) refer to a wider meta consensus in assessing votes. (Heck, there is a tendency to inconsistent closing in areas where we do have a wide consensus on standards). That this was closed as keep when other similar discussions have been closed as delete or merge/redirect is perfectly plausible given the closing admin's discretion and the state of the discussion when it ended. Personally I might have discarded a lot of the opinion/assertion votes but the closing admin has wide discretion around how they weight the opinions expressed.
+'''[[:UFC 158]]''' – Opinions from SubSeven and Portillo have been discarded from the close. Beyond that, this is a tricky discussion to close. Only one participant has mentioned the current practise of redirecting/merge for these articles when it seems to me a that an emerging wider consensus might be relevant to the close. Otherwise, the absence of a clear threshold for having individual or omnibus added to a vociferous block of MMA advocates who flood discussions with weak to poor arguments with limited policy value makes the background to this discussion very uncomfortable. In this environment we cannot be surprised if there is no consistency to AFD closes if closing admins do not (or do not know enough about the history to) refer to a wider meta consensus in assessing votes. (Heck, there is a tendency to inconsistent closing in areas where we do have a wide consensus on standards). That this was closed as keep when other similar discussions have been closed as delete or merge/redirect is perfectly plausible given the closing admin's discretion and the state of the discussion when it ended. Personally I might have discarded a lot of the opinion/assertion votes but the closing admin has wide discretion around how they weight the opinions expressed.
 <br />
 What this does highlight is the total mess around the the current set of MMA articles & the absence of a clear consensus on how to deal with them. I am '''endorsing''' the close as any other reading of the discussion would be perverse.