Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Grant Neal

Hello everyone! I just became aware of this group and I personally want to thank you all for your amazing contributions to MMA and these athletes. I need help getting a wikipedia page created for Grant Neal. Ranked 9th in Bellator's Light Heavyweight division. Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated! I'd be willing to make a donation to expedite the process. email is info@aoqsports.com 2603:8001:3C02:2DEF:7495:151E:AE4B:3BE8 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Accepting payment for a wikipedia page is a big no no, also Grant Neal needs two more fights and he will be eligible. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I was unaware of the rules regarding payment/donation. My apologies. 2603:8001:3C02:2DEF:7495:151E:AE4B:3BE8 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

New MMA Notability Guidelines

@Papaursa, Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, PRehse, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, Cassiopeia, Eerie Holiday, UFC Cub Beavis, Antumdeluge, Mehrdaad.wiki, Mr.adamgreen, GameRCrom, Bkissin, Powderkegg, Kosbit4, PabloLikesToWrestle, Ikamborden, KINGFEDORQc, GameRCrom, MadjarMMA, Ptkday, Picograms, Diana056, NEDOCHAN, and RafaelHP: Hey, so a slight issue has come up and because all the participation guidelines have been removed, now the MMA notability is just "Have been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (fightmatrix.com)." I think we should come together and make some new ones that avoid the participation criteria. I know Papaursa has talked about having a a guideline where if a fighter wins X amount of times in a tier 1 promotion, he is notable, which sounds like a good rule to me. Another posibility is expanding the ranking criteria, ala instead of just top 10, maybe top 25, top 50, etc. Let me know what you guys think. Don't know if I missed anyone, so let me know. HeinzMaster (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a discussion that would have to be raised at NSPORT, since MMABIO is essentially just essay value. Also having X amount of fights in a top tier promotion is the exact kind of thing NSPORT wanted to remove, that is participation based criteria. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @RafaelHP: Most editors contribute to Wikipedia because they're fans of whatever subject. They naturally seek the advice and support of like-minded folks. Why, if I wanted to protect the articles I like, would I make the political mistake of taking my fandom to a widely-watched guideline where deletionists are likely to pounce? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think participation is only appliable to the previous criteria where it was 3 fights, regardless off if they won all three or lost them all, warranted a wiki page. However if we change it to a fighter has to win 2 times or 3 times, then it's based on accomplishment and not them just participating. I have looked over the other sports and many of them have "qualify for X event" or "place in the top 10 of this event", so having it as you having to win a set amount of bouts would be acceptable. I am only trying to set some new criteria since I find having to be ranked top 10 to be too strict and under that 90% of MMA articles would be open for deletion. Not trying to attack, just trying to work together as you nominated Ian Garry for deletion. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I get how the old three fights in a major rule was a bit excessive, but ranked top-ten is definitely too thin. Why not just save ourselves the headache of ever having to do any work ever again and only create pages for UFC champions while we're at it... /sNswix (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the old rule of 3 fights is vague. Other than obvious reasons (like fighting for a title before that requirement), creating fighters' articles based on 2 wins, 3 fights or top 15 ranking is a good option imo. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that media notability should also be taken into consideration. Someone like Paddy Pimblett was receiving too much interest, for months, to have held off as long as we had to. Nswix (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Another valid point. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comments As someone who has been in on MMA notability discussions since they started (2010), I feel I bring a unique long term perspective on this topic. The reason for the top 10 benchmark is because it's been the standard for all the major fighting sports (boxing, MMA, and kickboxing). That's particularly relevant since boxing has such a long history. Also, whatever is decided by the MMA project will still need to be discussed and approved at WT:NSPORT if you want to change the NSPORT notability criteria. Requiring several wins may, or may not, circumvent the demise of participation criteria--I honestly don't know. The gold standard is still meeting WP:GNG, which shows WP notability regardless of field or SNG criteria. Personally, I don't go looking for MMA articles to delete but I will vote on them using whatever the existing criteria are. I think many of the existing MMA articles will not survive an AfD discussion using the current criteria, at least in their present state. I think anyone writing a new article or who is a fan of a particular fighter should be preemptive and make sure those articles can withstand an AfD challenge. For some active fighters who are still climbing the ranks, it may be prudent to userfy their articles to save what currently exists. Trying to claim notability based on what they might achieve is generally doomed to fail. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose new guidelines the 3-fight criteria is far superior to the ranking for multiple reasons: the former criteria is concrete, while the ranking system is fluid and constantly changing, in some organizations almost on a weekly bases. The top ten system is also skewed towards divisions with smaller pools of fighters, such as high weight women's divisions. As mentioned by a couple editors above, this sudden change in notability guidelines has resulted in many article suddenly being deemed no notable, with the coming onslaught of potential AFDs being disruptive. Inter&anthro (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comments I'm not a huge fan of the new notability guidelines. A lot of MMA pages will be wiped out this way. Its not exactly easy to make top 10 in the UFC. Its also unfair as its far easier to make top 10 in the Heavyweight division compared to Bantamweight or Lightweight. Not to mention rankings are subjective. The 3 fight in a Top tier promotion requirement was pretty straightforward. If we want to decrease the number of low quality fighters, maybe we should add in must have at least 2 wins in a top tier promotion as some have mentioned. -Imcdc (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of full names

I noticed there was a batch of full names and their references (from Nevada Athletic Commission) removed on the grounds of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Articles like Henry Cejudo, Dominick Cruz, Tyron Woodley, Dustin Poirier. After quickly checking out athlete articles ie. Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, Wayne Gretzky and Tiger Woods to name a few, their full names were there even without sources. I kind of understand the reasoning behind the edits, but shouldn't all the aforementioned second names etc be removed as unsourced, or how do they differ from mixed martial artists? I'm honestly just trying to figure things out before I go on an unsourced second name editing rampage throughout the WP. Ticelon (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Papaursa, Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, PRehse, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, Cassiopeia, Eerie Holiday, UFC Cub Beavis, Antumdeluge, Mehrdaad.wiki, Mr.adamgreen, GameRCrom, Bkissin, Powderkegg, Kosbit4, PabloLikesToWrestle, Ikamborden, KINGFEDORQc, GameRCrom, MadjarMMA, Ptkday, Picograms, Diana056, NEDOCHAN, and RafaelHP: Ticelon (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this. I have no idea why editors are removing the full names and it seems like they've misunderstood both guidelines.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's simply a misunderstanding of BLP:NAME and poor editing.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

By definition, the above doesn't apply to any MMA fighter pages, as they're not discussed primarily in terms of a single event. I would support reverting all these edits and restoring their names.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I dont think its a misunderstanding of BLPPrimary. It's made pretty clear primary sources (i.e court records, public documents) must be accompanied by secondary sources. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

To be safe though I'll ask some questions at BLP Noticeboard before I remove any more full names. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You've misunderstood both guidelines. BLP Name is about not identifying individuals who aren't notable other than from their involvement in an event that has an article about it. Primary is about not drawing conclusions based on your research of primary sources.

Neither guideline says delete names of people who are the subject of articles. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This comes up at BLPN regularly and the consensus is (nearly) always that this level of detail should be removed unless supported by reliable, secondary sources—as is the case for the current discussion there. Per BLPPRIVACY, full names and dates of birth need to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources, or self-published in a way that it's clear the subject doesn't mind it being out there. ("Hey, it's my 25th birthday today" or something along those lines.) BLPPRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources like public documents aren't enough. Woodroar (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those two policies apply to this case. BLPNAME is about private persons whose names are not relevant to the context in which they are mentioned, not about public figures who are literally subject of the article. Primary sources may be used if they are reliably published and the info taken from them are straightforward facts that can be easily verified by anyone. They must be supplied by secondary sources only if the information from them requires interpretation, which is not the case here. Diana056 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the BLP noticeboard, but these names don't appear to even have primary sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy overriding pretty much anything else. Henry Cejudo doesn't have a reference for a birth name, nor a full name. There's a reference to a name he used in a fight. At best it's a reference for a 'other name'. The solution here is to find and add references supporting the thing being said. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The name reference used in Cejudo's article, as well as most others, are official documents released by the athletic commissions under whose jurisdiction they fought. So it's not just a name they used in a fight, it's their official legal name at the time of the fight which they provided to the commission. Although secondary sources would obviously be better, this is imo an acceptable primary source. Diana056 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned elsewhere that I'd personally find it acceptable for a 'fight name', 'stage name', or whatever they're called. Saying it's a legal name sounds a bit like original research, as you've concluded from somewhere that it's an 'official legal name'. It still doesn't reference a birth name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've little to add other than that I agree with Diana056's interpretation of the guidelines.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to say that I disagree with that interpretation, as I'm of the opinion that it can be sometimes made to fit. However, I'd have hoped that you'd surely agree that policy requires references, and that these facts are not referenced. Let's take another example, Dominick Cruz. Where is the reference - any reference - stating his name at birth? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you surprised? I won't say names, but there is one person whose whole contribution to MMA wiki is deleting content. Never done anything else. HeinzMaster (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned as BLPN, it's inappropriate to use primary sources for sourcing names of living person. This needs to stop as they're serious BLP violations. These are the sort of things which sometimes justify rev-deletion. Note that even outside names primary sources should very rarely be used in BLPs even if the details do not require interpretation. BLP is far stricter with the use of primary source, so do not confuse the two. Even simple things like fight results should not generally be sourced exclusively to primary sources. Note that if details keep getting deleted because they're inappropriately sourced, the solution is either to successfully change our policy on BLP and RS, or stop inappropriately sourcing details. Wikiprojects should be aiming to ensure their editing complies with our policies (and guidelines) rather than developing a local consensus which ignores it. If you see a wikiproject regular causing problems by adding details without suitable sources or with unsuitable sources, then caution them. Worst case scenario if they keep at it, bring up a case at AN for them to be blocked. This will help improve Wikipedia and help improve this Wikiproject. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that WP:MMA has grown a bit of a reputation for ignoring guidelines and changes. 80% atleast of fighter articles with full names are sourced with primary sources, rarely ever accompied by secondary sourcing. I site policy and remove the inappropriately sourced content, and people start calling me unconstructive. It's quite frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am done

@Papaursa, Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, PRehse, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, Cassiopeia, Eerie Holiday, UFC Cub Beavis, Antumdeluge, Mehrdaad.wiki, Mr.adamgreen, GameRCrom, Bkissin, Powderkegg, Kosbit4, PabloLikesToWrestle, Ikamborden, KINGFEDORQc, GameRCrom, MadjarMMA, Ptkday, Picograms, Diana056, NEDOCHAN, and RafaelHP:

Anyway, with the recent things happening on the MMA wiki project, I am done. Tofiq Musayev got deleted even tho I added more sources and it clearly passed GNG but the sources were in non-English, so alas. Kinda hard to create an article that isn't like the old one and supposedly adding more sources isn't enough. I genuinely hope 99% of MMA articles are deleted while you can create a page for every random football, soccer, basketball player on earth. Peace. HeinzMaster (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you take offense to me deleting articles. It really isnt anything personal, but you're choosing to ignore the fact that the NSPORT guidelines were changed. If I see an article that I think doesnt meet the guidelines, what am I supposed to do? You always have the opportunity to prove your pages meet GNG by the way, and if they dont that's not anyone's fault. I have created a draft before (which you accepted as an article). ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out I had literally nothing to do with Tofiq Musayev's page being deleted. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In a round about way you did since you attracted the attention of the wikipedia internet janitors. But don't worry, now you can create every article. HeinzMaster (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

How? In any case if an admin decided that your page wasn't even worth another AfD process, I don't see how in anyway that's my fault. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Because that admin got upset with another thing I did in relation to one of your decisions and to spite me decided to nominate the page for speedy deletion. They already threatened me with instant block within 5 seconds over a simple mistake that I was in the process of undoing. None of this matters tho, now you have a chance to contribute. HeinzMaster (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not directly with Musayev's page, but indirectly with just about every MMA fighter's page that was created in the past few months. Good luck in nominating further pages for deletion. Ptkday (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Heinz you're an asset to the project and I hope you stay. I continue to be baffled by Rafael's approach to editing. I'm afraid they're a lost cause. You're not, though, so please stick around.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your continuance of only using one source for fight records. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Using the reference in the infobox baffles you?! I can't see any members of the project leaving on my account, though. Maybe we're all wrong and you're the only one who understands how you're helping.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's more an issue of NSPORT cutting our guidelines down. I dont like them, but I will follow them as this is Wikipedia. Even despite all the incivility I've been getting for following standard policy, I'm gonna continue to uphold it, and if anyone doesnt like that, again that's an issue with NSPORT. Eventually people are gonna start deleting articles if we dont get them changed, so blaming me solves nothing. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that HeinzMaster, but at the same time I completely understand and share your frustration. As of now, I have completely refrained myself from creating new articles due to the senseless NSPORT guideline. I am also seriously considering completely retiring from WP:MMA because some users enforce WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG so fervently that it's impossible to guess what is enough to reach significant coverage. What I am most afraid of is that by enforcing these guidelines, we will lose a huge chunk of the history of the sport because the articles of Japanese and Brazilian pioneers of the sport (Vale Tudo tournaments, Pankration, RINGS, Deep, Pancrase etc) don't necessarily fulfill the requirements due to lack of contemporary references in ie. English. I have a list of articles that I am going to significantly revamp before calling it a day unless something changes. Ticelon (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter that some sources are not in English, it's not a valid deletion rationale although I occasionally see editors nominating articles for deletion state this. Google Translate isn't perfect but it can give the sense of the coverage in an article. The part that is harder than translating the content of the reference is knowing whether the sources would be what we consider to be reliable or not. But this issue comes up with articles in not only other sports but many other subjects as well as there are entire fields of study and society that are not covered by English language publications.

Regarding the current turmoil at AFD discussions, I just want to encourage that more people who are knowledgeable about Mixed Martial Arts participate in AFD discussions to balance out those who regularly voice their opinion at AFDs but who may not know much about the people, the events, the sport or the sources of information. I know that deletion discussions take away time that could be spent creating or improving articles but we really need more people participating at AFDs on subjects that interest you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that some people don't even realize that the NSPORT guidelines were changed, or just don't like that the guidelines were cut down. For example when nominating articles like David Onama, Ronnie Lawrence for deletion, multiple people kept asking about the old "3 fight rule" guideline, despite it having been changed in March. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@HeinzMaster: I understand your frustration... I just hope you reconsider it, despite the current situation. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@HeinzMaster: I'm sorry to see you leave, but understand. I've never figured out why some editors will mark articles for deletion based on "lack of sources" instead of just adding sources to them, where possible. The notability excuse is also weird for me, as there are active discussions trying to recodify the notability guidelines. I hope you'll stay on the battle line. There are never enough soldiers on it. CLalgo (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@HeinzMaster and RafaelHP:

• RafaelHP, I speak here as the Wikipedia newpage trainer here the NMMA is under NSPORT and NSPORT is under GNG, when you nominated a page for AfD, you should not only looking at if the subject passes NSPORT or NMMA but more IMPORTANTLY to do a WP:BEFORE prior nominate the page. Editor should do their upmost to improve the article, adding sources to get the page pass GNG "first" and not because the current article does not appear to meet the guidelines above. Wikipedia accept sources in ANY LANGUGES as long as they are independent, reliable sources. We the new page reviewers often use Google translate to review articles. Pls again, do the BEFORE and find sources to improve the article to achieve notability guidelines first prior doing a AfD. I suggest you to move the article to draft space instead of AfD as the subjects usually would be notable in the future and all the work done on the articles (content and sources) does not go wasted. Cassiopeia talk 09:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi HeinMaster, I was absent for some day and just notice your destress message after cleaning hundreds of edits and reviews. Apologies for my delay in responding to your message on my talk page. Since I am here, I will reply you here instead. I understand your frustration for and understand how much work you spent on creating all the articles as I was the one creating the mma fighter articles prior you started editing. All the research, source searching, adding tables, content as it takes days work for a short article to form. I can represent the MMA editors in Wikipedia to say we appreciate and thank you for your work, time spent, dedication, team work, civil behavior, collaboration, and much much more. For those who have been editing MMA related pages for a long time, would know at times it is very frustrated and upset when certain things do not go well. PLEASE DON'T GO (I saw your edits for the last two days so I take it as a good sign) - take a break from creating UFC fighter articles, edit lesser or edit content on existing mma UFC fighters and event pages. For those deleted articles where Papaursa participate, you can be sure it fails GNG as Papaursa would always do a BEFORE prior voting the AfD. You can always ask for a WP:REFUND for your deleted article so you may keep a copy on the draft page so the content go to waste until the subject is notable. The RUFEND can be requested from the admin who deleted the articles at the AfD and do state your reasons. (Note: you need to edit at least one time from the last edit made on the draft page and if not the page will be nominated for G13 and will be deleted) Once again, we thank you for your contribution and please come to my talk page if you need anything or any helps or just to vent. Take good care. Cassiopeia talk

Should the style param be used?

Should the style parameter in the infobox be used at all? By its very nature it makes no sense. To give an example, Jose Aldo's fighting style is listed as BJJ, which is contrary to the way he actually fights. This makes the style parameter in effect misleading. Thoughts? TBMNY (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think WPMMA:STYLE deals with it well. Aldo obviously shouldn't be down as BJJ.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN I think he should under the current way it's done. He has won in BJJ tournaments. TBMNY (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MMA/MOS, the style parameter should only be used if the athlete has completed professionally in other sports. So for example someone like Michael Chandler has his style as wrestling because he formerly competed as a NCAA Division 1 wrestler, or someone like Ronaldo Souza, his style is BJJ becuase he won numerous gold medals in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu tournaments. Interpretation for styles should not be used, if a fighter displays boxing skills in a fight but has no achievements in the sport or professional record, their style would remain blank. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. ^ NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@RafaelHP Under the current language, Michael Chandler arguably shouldn't count. College wrestling isn't professional nor is it an international competition. TBMNY (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Chandler shouldn't be Wrestling. I don't think Aldo has won international BJJ tournaments and I don't think there would be an article about him if he weren't an MMA fighter. So I would support not including the parameter for either of them.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Aldo, he won a bronze medal in the World Jiu Jitsu championships, medaled gold in a different tournament. It might be valid to include BJJ in his style, though it's not accurate to how he fights in MMA. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the guidelines give 2 things to consider. First is whether they've competed internationally or professionally. In addition one needs to consider whether they'd warrant an article for their status in the style. I'd argue McGregor does because he was half of the second biggest professional boxing match there's ever been. Not sure Aldo would and Chandler almost certainly wouldn't.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN Wouldn't the ranks for each discipline be enough for nearly everyone? Like even for someone who would arguably would merit an article on their own, such as Brock. There's already a wrestling parameter that says "

NCAA Division I Wrestling" for him. Putting "wrestling" as his style seems redundant. Or the case of ||Rodolfo Vieira||, his rank is already listed as a black belt in BJJ. It's just all redundant. The rank and wrestling categories nearly solve all the problems that "style" has. TBMNY (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)