Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 2 April 2012

Hi, I thought I'd discuss the matter here, rather than WP:MMA. Good work on this draft. My thoughts are as such:

Organisations

Yeah, I totally agree with the criteria, though I'd add a few examples in:

Maximum Fighting Championship - Canada's top promotion
Affliction Entertainment - a fairly large (now defunct) organisation, given they had some top names like Fedor Emelianenko and Andrei Arlovski, as well as their continued clothing venture.

I didn't think MFC was quite there yet--geographically limited, seems more like a training ground for bigger promotions. I didn't think about Affliction. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Events

I'm not sure how this is defined. Would you have the UFC/WEC/Strikeforce/DREAM events or not? I'd say there is definitely the need for them.

I was thinking about almost all fight cards, unless something significant happened besides the fight outcomes. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the coverage
The highest title. Now by this, I can only think of one example in Cage Rage. They had Cage Rage world champions and Cage Rage British champions. For me, both have notability and symbolised the top of the organisation.

I was actually thinking about Shooto which has at least Pacific Rim, Rookie, and European Amateur titles as well as their world titles. Given the number of organizations and the usual athletic standards (Olympics or World Championships), I felt only the highest title should be considered.Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest gripe I have with this well-done draft is the SIX fight quota needed. Such notables as Amir Sadollah or Matt Mitrione don't meet this standard. For me, this should be two. That then allows such fighters as the aforementioned Mitrione and others not earlier mentioned such as Rory MacDonald (fighter).

Thought you might dislike that number. The reason I set it that high is because I only want to include truly notable fighters. Many are signed to 1 or 2 fight contracts that are essential tryouts. Also, I don't believe all the organizations are equally notable, but I wanted to keep the criteria simple. Another issue to me was if someone tried to count the fights on TUF--I don't consider those equal to regular UFC fights. If I were king I'd say TUF fights don't count. How about a compromise of 3 fights, not including TUF? Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion criteria:

Fought pre-dominantly for non-notables. Well this could outweigh point 3 from notability. A fighter could have 15 fights in local shows, before having the required fights in major organisations. By definition, that fighter, despite passing notability, therefore also meets deletion criteria, having fought mostly for locals.

Agreed. It should be obvious that meeting notability is the real criteria. I'll rewrite that. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other point I'd make is that there's no mention given here about The Ultimate Fighter. How many of these are classed as notable? How do they pass it by the majority's standards? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not sure how to deal with TUF. See my comments on the number of fights. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to reply at the bottom, just so that it doesn't become all confused later on.

Your first point: MFC, I'd say is no more a feeder league than Bellator is. The last MFC event, I believe, featured a main event of Thales Leites vs. Jesse Taylor, two former UFC competitors; one of which who competed in a main event, for the UFC MW title. While not HUGE names, they are certainly notable in my opinion. I'm not going to push MFC adamantly, but I'd say it's worth investigation as to whether it could be included.

Second point: I think personally that all events from the BIG organisations, as I previously mentioned deserve note. Every WWE pay-per-view, if we use this as a basis for comparison, has its each article and I believe the two fall under similar categorisation.

Third point: Shooto, I had no idea about. You mention an "amateur" title. Yeah, absolutely not notable in my opinion. Worth a mention in articles, but not something that should be wholly relied on for notability. However, I would be interested in your opinion on my previous Cage Rage example.

Fourth point: I get your point about 1/2 fight contracts and I'd say that for most organisations, that's largely true. I'd say all though, but UFC. With UFC being the highest level of competition, I wouldn't quite classify it as a tryout under the classic definition as I understand. I would say that by definition, taking on any fighter is a gamble, as they could be a massive flop (e.g. Rolles Gracie), but that doesn't mean that they are taken on as a tryout, because some of the fighters sign 2 fight contracts, lose both and stay on, e.g. Jacob Volkmann. I think it would be stubborn of me to dig my heels in and request 2, so yeah, neither of us would be particularly happy with it, but I guess 3 has to be the way forward.

As for TUF, I still maintain that competitors are notable, by virtue of WP:ATHLETE, though I guess the parameters we're looking to set in place completely go against that. As such, I'm not entirely sure the right way to go with this. I'd definitely say that those invited back to the live finale should be notable, as though they potentially don't have 2/3/however many fights, they have the combination of at least that one live fight at the TUF Finale, as well as participation in a highly notable show (owing to its Zuffa banner).

One final point/question: are we including anything about having fighters that haven't competed in notable events, BUT have competed against many notable opponents? Paralympiakos (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I wasn't that keen on including Bellator but went with it based on comments on the MMA project talk page. I'm inclined to leave MFC off right now, but if they continue to draw notable fighters they can be added. My inclination is to add and remove organizations slowly. If I had the information, I'd look at how international the fighters are to help determine an organization's notability. Fighters' paychecks would be another criteria I'd use, if I could (both for organizations and the fighters themselves). However, lacking that information I'm trying to find easy to use reference points.

I'd argue the WWE events shouldn't have their own pages either. I stick with what WP:N says.

As for the Cage Rage example, I go back to the WP:ATH standard of world championships and Olympics. However, since we've reduced the number of fights to 3, this shouldn't be an issue. If you're fighting for a championship and you don't have two previous fights yet, I'd say it's not much of a championship.

I'd be willing to count the TUF finale as a fight.

As for fighters that haven't competed in notable events, but have fought notable fighters--that probably means they didn't fight them in their prime. Think of the baseball analogy--minor leaguers compete against players who go on to be major leaguers or who were major leaguers all the time, but they're not notable. If they're good enough they become major leaguers themselves.

Finally, there are meant to be guidelines--they're not Wikipedia policy. Each fighter should be looked at on their own merits, it's possible there could be circumstances that might make a fighter notable who doesn't match the criteria we've discussed. I just want to get something down that people can refer to that's more objective and agreed upon than one person's opinion. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pop in about TUF, I think they should all have pages, as not only as fighters, but as TV "stars" There are comics from last comic standing and other "reality" shows that spent less time on TV that are on wikipedia (ducking rocks from TreyGeek) David.snipes (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to go with this, for the most part. There are some, (if we take TUF 9 for example) like AJ Wenn etc who aren't worthy of inclusion as they don't make it into the house, but some prelim fighters are involved in incidents that are fairly notable.

I'm also thinking about the reinstatement of Zak Jensen, especially since he's currently being investigated for homicide. Gives an extra layer to this article. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go with the ones that lost the pre-lims, but the main show- I.E the ones with IMDB entries. David.snipes (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about MFC. We'll just see how it goes then.

I think having event pages for the most notable organisations is justified, but even if I didn't, you'd find it impossible to battle this as you'll face a backlash from disgruntled IPs.

To be honest, there could be examples of fighters competing for a title despite not having lots of prior experience, e.g. Brock Lesnar. I can see where you're coming from, but that would have to be a case-by-case basis.

Finally, I'd say I'm fairly happy wit h this draft. If you want to put it up, that would be great. Good work! Paralympiakos (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me all a bit to the roster.

USA-MMA: Currently runs about 4 cards a year- all sellout, and recently had Ricco take thier Heavyweight title, Ken Shamrock is expected to sign after the Impact tour. They have had several larger card fighters come through thier ranks, and considering a good many of them have fought on Shine and Bellator came from that organization, big things are coming.

I do need to add an event listing for this one, but as of yet, had not had an oppertunity yet.

Ring Rulers: I still need to finish this page- but its the largest amatuer organization in the country, running about 20 events a year in 6 states. Will Campuzano (WEC) might be the biggest name from there so far- but 6 of the Bellator 18 fighters came from there. Fighters that turned pro from there have fought in Dream, Shine, Bellator and TUF.

Naturally I have not added the event listings for this organization, as by themselves they are not notable.

Speaking of- We also need to add Impact to the Oceanic portion.

Other than that- awesome job! David.snipes (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

Good job getting this all organized. I don't have the time to edit on Wikipedia as much as I used to, but I've been in this project for a while now and wanted to give my quick thoughts:

-It seems to me that the Criteria supporting notability is a little too restrictive. When a fighter makes it to the big time (UFC), even if they only fight once, that seems to be the consensus for notability among the Wikipedia Sports community: Most atheltes in the major North American sports leagues that have played for at least one season seem to have a Wikipedia page (and often more extensive than the majority of MMA fighters' pages). In my experience the community needs to make more pages regarding MMA fighters. Also, MMA is lucky when it receives any coverage at all from the national media (either than the MMA media).

-The Current list of notable MMA organizations is missing World Victory Road, the parent company of Sengoku Raiden Championship (formerly just Sengoku) (I think someone got it mixed it with Shooto on the WP:MMA page). WVR is definitely one of the Top 10 MMA Promotions in the world- and I could make the argument that it is Top 5.

I will try to keep checking up on this project, keep up the good work. (Justinsane15 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Justinsane15 I most definitely agree with you that the criteria is way too strict and that it needs loosening to allow the growth of other MMA promotions and their fighters. I have put a suggested layout at the bottom which follows similar aspects of the current criteria but it allows much more freedom on the slightly lesser known promotions who are still making their names and getting recognition. Please feel free to comment and suggest any more changes to your heart's content. I would also like your opinion of having BAMMA, Cage Rage and EliteXC being pushed to top tier. I feel that each has/have done enough to earn that spot due to their popularity, recognition (Cage Rage is recognised across the UK, even to those who simply can't stand the sport) and what they have accomplished, such as BAMMA signing Nate Marquardt (a Top 10 Middleweight in ranking systems such as Sherdog) and EliteXC currently hold the highest ratings a MMA event has had in the USA (Kimbo Slice vs. James Thompson). BigzMMA 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

I think we should keep discussions about changes, additions, subtractions, on the MMA project's talk page. That said, any comments that improve these guidelines are good.

Let me put in my 2 cents on some of the recent comments. Given that most professional MMA circuits don't make the cut, it's hard to see how an amateur circuit operating in 6 states can be considered notable. Also, when I looked at the World Victory Road page I saw champions given in only 2 divisions. I can't see how an organization can be notable and have champions in only 2 divisions.

I also don't agree with the comparison of 1 MMA fight to a season in other sports leagues. Leagues have 1 season a year--an MMA fighter can fight a number of times in a year. Papaursa (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New additions

As per above, I added Sengoku. Not sure how that one was missed out.

Anyway, I've added a list of potentials, that while aren't as notable as UFC, PRIDE etc, could, in my eyes, play a small part in establishing notability.

BAMMA-- with Cage Rage now dead, Cage Warriors and BAMMA are the top two in Britain and are fairly decent. For example, BAMMA 3 was supposed to be headlined by Tom Watson and Alex Reid. It also featured fighters such as Seth Petruzelli and War Machine.

Elite XC-- I'm sure people don't really need a background for this company. I'd say main carding for Elite XC would be a slight help in establishing notability. I'm not saying that a fighter could have 3 fights here and pass notability; they'd have to have some appearances in the already established list too.

Maximum Fighting Championship-- see above somewhere.

Ring of Combat-- bear with me on this one. ROC is pretty much a feeder league for the UFC and they've had a LOT of new guys come from this promotion. As such, I'd say that gives it a decent reputation, albeit as a secondary promotion. As per Elite XC, not 3 apps = notability, but it can be a contributory factor in establishing notability. It's also important to note they've appeared on HDNet fights multiple times. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following promotions that would appear to meet notability guidelines. Each promotion has existed for years and has put on a large number of shows, often with top fighters: King of the Cage, M-1 Global (notable for the M-1 Challenge), and Pancrase. I also alphabetized the list and renamed some items to follow a more consistent naming structure. I also added Impact Fighting Championships and Adrenaline MMA to the list of organizations for future debate regarding notability following the above examples. Eshaeffer (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW) as a second tier promotion. It is the most popular promotion in Poland and one of the biggest in Eastern Europe. Also, the promotion is one of the highest rated programs on polish television (and gets substantial international converage since Mariusz Pudzianowski was brought in), which makes it highly notable.(Justinsane15 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

New changes

I disagree with the new changes, in the way that I perceive them. There is now a second tier (which I actually like, as UFC is obviously far more notable than Adrenaline MMA), but there's no provision for how many 2nd tier fights = notability.

For example, at the moment, Jim Wallhead fails criteria on the basis that he's never fought in the TOP promotions, despite being highly notable. Previously, his Cage Rage career (I'm working off memory here, so I think he passed via that) saw him comfortably pass these guidelines, but now I'm not so sure. Are we going to discuss new rules? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, as many promotions and fighters as possible should be covered. Apart from notability one should pay attention to neutrality - not only in individual articles but also in regard to the selection of articles.

At the moment MMA pages in Wikipedia look as if they had been written by the PR department of the UFC. UFC fighters and fights are described in great detail and they are also hyped way too much. I think Wikipedia is one of the main reasons why many people think that MMA is the same as UFC. 130.235.3.161 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a slight problem with Bitetti Combat MMA being considered second tier when they don't even HAVE A PAGE - It redirects to the event log.

I am also of the opinion that some are trying to be WAY to exclusive here.

Fighters: Basically, we are looking to wipe out every football player that never played 3 seasons in the NFL or The Major Leagues

Let me ask you this- who is the big MMA second tier in the south? Most of these are in the Northeast and in the Rust belt or on the West Coast.

Ring Rulers, Cage Rulers, GFA, USA-MMA have all had shows that outdrew the Bellator shows that have been here the last 2 years. This is like tossing the Ivy League out of the NCAA because no one sees their stuff on Fox and few of the fighters (as of yet) have gotten to the Big Time. David.snipes (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that given the recent changes to the notability guidelines, Bas Rutten would only be on the cusp of being considered notable. There are clearly articles about him,. But, Pancrase is listed as a second-tier organization and he only fought twice in the UFC (even though one fight won him the heavyweight belt), so he would seemingly not meet the criteria if every one of them has to be rigidly satisfied. Are these characteristics supposed to be indicators of notability or requirements for notability? I'm not sure the page as it currently exists makes this clear. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the following additional changes to the criteria supporting notability and deletion for organizations. I suspect these changes will be much less controversial than the new criteria for fighters (of course, I could be wrong). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria supporting notability

  1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage
  2. Promotes a large number of events--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable
  3. Has actively been in business for several years--the longer the organization has been around, the better
  4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters

Criteria supporting deletion

  1. Short history
  2. Few notable fighters fight in their events
  3. Primarily regional fighters compete at events.
  3. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies
  4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts

I would support these proposed changes as it is more inclusive and less controversal. (Justinsane15 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

MMA Weight Class Champions

Someone has added the list of current champions to each of the weight class articles (see Heavyweight (MMA) as an example). I believe that this is a good idea. However, I also believe that only the top tier promotions should be included in this list. An IP keeps adding King of the Cage to the list, which is a second tier promotion. Can we set a precedent for this? (Justinsane15 (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Nice idea in principle, but so open to those sort of edits. I've also noticed that the table has "records" for the various fighters. This should definitely be removed as it's just an unnecessary box that needs updating after every single fight. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be to axe them. It will just be another page that will have to be editing following a show when the information can be found elsewhere (and likely in a better place), it will just lead to an additional source of vandalism, and the table has extra information (WEC will likely never have a Heavyweight championship, why is it even on the table?). Get rid of it, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm IP 67.149.195.205, who created the tables and kept putting up KOTC. At the time I did not understand why Justinsane15 kept taking KOTC down, I felt it was a well known organization that was worth mentioning, I was unaware of "Top Tier" and "Second Tier". I like to know why WAMMA is not listed as "Top Tier" as well as EliteXC? I made the tables because some boxing weight classes pages such as light middleweight have these tables. I felt why not have these tables for MMA as well? Sorry to be a bother. 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.195.205 (talk)

This information already exists in what I think is a far more useful place (see List of current MMA champions}. It would be far easier to update this single page, then to update each individual page separately. As long as this page is retained (which I hope it is), I see no reason why the pages for each weight class couldn't just link here. I am in favor of keeping KOTC as part of these tables. Current title holders include notable fighters such as Daniel Cormier and Mike Kyle, who also compete in first tier organizations. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Fighting Championships

I'm just wondering, how do people regard CFC in Australia presently? They've had a few fighters that pass MMANOT compete at their events. Less than a year ago, Hector Lombard was competing in the organisation. Would people be opposed to adding it to the second tier? Paralympiakos (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support from me. While it might not be on par with American organisations it is definitely notable in its country, which should be given a lot of weight. It has been running for a long time with multiple events, has had media coverage, and many notable fighters. Ashman05 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view has been that the second tier should be reasonably inclusive, but not all-inclusive. If the CFC is nationally known in Australia, I'd say go ahead and include it. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New additions to 2nd tier?

Konfrontacja_Sztuk_Walki aka KSW and Superior Challenge seems to be putting on cards with decent international talent, worth being considered for Tier 2? 2.220.196.175 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these organizations show that the popularity of MMA is growing in Europe, but both of these organizations only average about 2 shows a year. That doesn't seem significant to me, even for second tier organizations. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Network Rings

Anyone think they should be added to the list of notable promotions? They were pretty significant during the 1990s. I could see a case for either first or second tier, but IMO they should definitely be one or the other... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the addition, RINGS was first-tier for its main events and tournaments back in the day. Its regional events (Holland, Russia, USA, Australia, Lithuania, etc.) were less notable, but probably second-tier. Its current reincarnation with the Outside series likely falls outside of the second-tier now, but is still going strong. It seems reasonable to me to include RINGS as second-tier. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep and Zst

What are people's thoughts on including either DEEP and/or ZST to the second tier? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely believe DEEP has a place in the tiers, however, I'm not entirely sure where exactly to put it, so I'd say that for the time being it would be best to put it in the second tier so that it is there, and if its bigger than I thought, then go right ahead and put it in the top tier

Again I'm not too sure about ZST, I haven't heard anything about them but it could just be because they are a Japanese promotion and Asian MMA promotion are not my best strong-suit, for this reason, I'd say we need to look them up and see how well known they are, and then make a decision within a few short weeks. (BigzMMA 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

BigzMMA has already added DEEP to the list of second tier organizations. Normally we wait for more of a consensus, but I won't argue with this decision. However, the article needs more and better sources. The current article lacks the independent sources required to show notability. I don't think ZST warrents even second tier status, at least as written. I think it's hard to claim an MMA organization is notable when they don't have champions in any division above 60 kg. The fact that the first DEEP/ZST international fight card had to be cancelled doesn't help the case. It may well be the articles can be improved, but that's my opinion based on how the articles appear now. Papaursa (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMANOT currently unreliable as a system to determine notability of MMA fighters/promotions - need immediate rewriting

This is why I disagree with a lot of things with WP:MMANOT, they say that your only really notable IF you have competed for companies like the UFC, Strikeforce, Pride etc, when fighters like Paul Daley, Jim Wallhead and Neil Grove had their pages way before they competed for a top tier promotion. I find that the criteria for it makes it impossible for anyone who competes for promotions such as BAMMA, Cage Warriors, Cage Rage UK, Shark Fights virtually impossible to be accepted as a notable fighter, when they are probably the most recognised person in the area they fight in, like Tom Watson, who has never fought for companies like UFC or Strikeforce, has competed for Cage Rage and BAMMA and he is one of the most recognised faces in the UK MMA scene. It is also because of this that if it isn't recognised as a big enough promotion the guys who fight for them can't keep their pages unless they already competed for a major promotion, which means that the promotion actually has less 'well known' fighters in their ranks even though, using Tom Watson again as my example, are probably the most recognised people in the area/country they fight for, and then the promotion comes into question and then people are voting for that promotion to be deleted under criteria which is actually tears apart the promotion from the beginning. If promotions are not able to build themselves up not entirely on guys who have been in Pride or the UFC then no promotion can be nominated as a top tier promotion. If this was the case then promotions like Bellator, who hardly uses any recognised faces from the 'major promotions' has established themselves as one of them. In the end of the day, no-one can predict how long a 'major' promotion will stick around for, as Pride did over 10 years worth of events before selling up to the UFC, and we know how that ended, and Affliction, who only did two events and yet they are called a major promotion just because they has all major names who were not competing for the UFC at the time competed for their two only events (which by reading over criteria supporting deletion, it meets one or two of these due to having a really short history and only showing two events). EliteXC is considered a second tier promotion, yet they had many recognised faces fighting for them, they had the highest ratings an MMA event has to date has ever produced with Kimbo Slice's MMA debut taking place within an EliteXC event. To make this very long paragraph shorten to one simple sentence, this page is a total MESS, and disallows any growth of any MMA promotion and any fighter who competes for them. Because of all this I want to see the guides for MMA Notability to be completely rewritten so that it can any promotion/s that shows promise can be consider a top tier promotion, with promotions such as BAMMA being included as part of the conversation!

In fact, I may start by suggesting some improvements to the criteria for fighters and promotions on here, I feel that a fighter can meet criteria when he has fought multiple times for what is considered a second tier promotion/s, at leasts 3-5 times without having to compete for what is considered a major promotion like the UFC? The fighter would also meet criteria if he holds the highest title of a 'second tier' promotion at least once, especially if he is the first to hold the belt, such as Alan Omer, who won the first BAMMA World Featherweight Championship. I think that due to how rapid an MMA promotion can grown within 3 years, I say that with promotion criteria to keep it on Wikipedia, I say that a top/second tier promotion that is/has kept in business for a minimum of 3 years to the date of their first event is considered to have met criteria. Also the amount of well known fighters should not matter for whether or not a promotion is successful or even to meet criteria should be dissolved, as without the smaller promotions no-one would have heard of the fighter, and no matter how many pieces of criteria he does not meet, as long as he has fought for the UFC at least once he is safe. Travis Fulton is a brilliant example of how wrong this system is right now, he has only competed in the UFC just twice out of his 300+ fights yet Alan Omer, who has competed over 10 times, including twice for BAMMA, and won the world championship there can be considered for deletion yet Fulton can remain on here even though he has competed for the UFC only 2 times and seems nowhere near going back there, nor does he seem actually be recognised (I don't think people actually knows he has fought for the UFC before).

My biggest issue is how poorly is the list of what a top tier organisation is to what a second tier organisation is is laid out with companies that has only had two events be consider a 'top' promotion whereas EliteXC and Cage Rage, who have just as many recognised fighters as they do and have/had way more events than them be considered a 'second' tier promotion. No matter what happens I want to see this page's criteria and standards to be lowered and rewritten Immediately!!! (BigzMMA 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

The generally accepted notability criteria for sports requires that an athlete have competed at the highest level of their sport. Why should MMA be different? It's not about how many minor league games you played in, it's about whether you were good enough to reach the top level. The notability criteria you dislike were agreed to by the consensus of the MMA community. We may have disagreed about certain specifics, but in the end this was a compromise everyone could agree on. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa So lets thinks about one major sporting league on Wikipedia that IS NOT the highest level of the sport, and then lets decide whether that was a valid point. In Football (or Soccer to my American counterparts) the highest level of the sport in the UK is the Premier League, which shows the best teams across England and Wales compete for a full season, with the best team winning the league title and the bottom three dropping down to the Championships division, with the top three of that league takes their places whilst bottom of that league goes to Division 1, and the swap around with their best and their worse goes to Division 2. Now obviously everyone wants to only know about the Premier League unless your team competes for a lower leagues. So what you are saying is that if a team does not compete nor never has competed at the Premier League then it doesn't have a place on here? Well tell that to the people who continue to run these pages, which I will actually give you two pages to save time - Premier League, Football League Championship.

Why should MMA be different? lets look over what I just say above and break down a certain content to a simple sentence. The worse of the division gets de-promoted down to a lower league whilst the best of the lower leagues get promoted. The same is currently used in MMA, even at this moment as you read this. If your not able to beat enough of your competition at the stage your fighting on, then Dana White will give you your P45 (same as a pink slip in Britain) and tell you if you want back in, you gotta beat the competition that stands below them first. Both very similar so far right? Well there is always gotta be somewhere someone can fight elsewhere in otherwise we all may as well say the UFC has turned the business side of MMA into a lottery. And where-ever they end up, there is always going to be guys there who have never been to the UFC who want to get there so badly, and some of them do go to the UFC from that promotion. So what we got there is MMA's version of the Football League Championship, except there isn't just one Football League Championship, there are dozens of them, scattered across the world, some of them are similar size and stature, some bigger than others, none without their flaws yet they are the divisions that shares both fighters who competed at the highest level and want to get back there and fighters who are talented and are working their way to get there for the first time, and for some, do get through and gets to fight for the UFC.

So to answer your question 'Why should MMA be different?' Its because without them, we may not even have a UFC, talent has to come from somewhere and the UFC can't just be expected to find it without having seen them compete before. Even in the earliest days of the UFC, the talent was only one disciplined, yet the UFC was looking for the best from each discipline to compete in their tournament, and how did they know they were the best? They looked for Black Belts in some disciplines like BJJ, Judo and Karate, National Champions in Wrestling, Boxing and Kickboxing, and I can go on with this until the sky turns green with purple stripes but my point is currently clear enough for you to see that the UFC wants the best talent fighting for them, and they need to look somewhere for it. These promotions and the guys fighting for them are just as vital for the UFC's growth as is the UFC putting on the best fights possible with the best fighters they have got.

You cannot possibly say that everything written down on here and called 'criteria' that all MMA promotions/fighters needs to match on this page is the best system to use and treat it like it was calved out by the hands of god. I simply cannot see how a compromise was made when someone/some people wanted to see Affliction Entertainment be made into a top tier promotion, - it clearly fails in one or two criteria to support it's position on Wikipedia and meets two criteria that supports it deletion, whereas Cage Rage, an MMA organisation that meets ALL criteria supporting its notability for both it's fighters and its events can still be considered a 'second tier' promotion. Matter of fact I will put the list of all the 'notable' fighters that have competed for Cage Rage here -

The following fighters (in alphabetical order) have won titles in Cage Rage and are well-known in the world of MMA.

Non-titleholders who have competed in Cage Rage and in other top-level promotions.

I got this off the Cage Rage page, I have updated it slightly by adding in the last champions of the company that have made it in companies like the UFC, but it may not be completely accurate, as there may be around 10+ more people from Cage Rage that has made it to the 'top tier' leagues and have not been recorded.

I find it a disgrace that promotions like this are (or were if they are no longer running) considered second tier when they are the most recognised promotions in the world, even people who despise MMA in the UK all recognised the Cage Rage name, and I'm sure that the Americans know about Cage Rage also. If that doesn't spell 'Top Tier Promotion' clear enough, then well I must be the only sane person who uses and writes for Wikipedia.

Like I said, I think it's time for this page to be rechecked and rewritten. It is also like I said before, there are element that need improving, changing, updating and deleted, but EVERYTHING needs rewriting. (BigzMMA 10:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

UCMMA/Cage Rage UK

It is because of this that one of Britain top three MMA promotions, along side BAMMA and Cage Warriors is deleted on wikipedia, even though it is as notable as you can get, as they have a Sky Sports TV deal, the biggest sporting channel in the UK and the same one used as their orginal MMA promotion - Cage Rage, used until its demise. I think its time we really do chage many things on this page!! (BigzMMA 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

I think what needs to change is your viewpoint. Nine editors contributed to the AFD discussion of UCMMA and you were the only one who thought it should be kept. You've already told us that the people who disagree with you are "a lynch mob" and know nothing about MMA. Here again, you're claiming you know better than the consensus of everyone else. You've admitted to being a shill for this organization--contacting them, trying to promote them via WP, asking for help making them notable, etc. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the boot fits Astudent0 ... Look if you really think that UCMMA is un-notable, then either you don't bother digging for information on them or you just don't bother going further than a Google search, but either way anyone who looks into UCMMA/Cage Rage UK properly can see that it has a place on Wikipedia (which by the way was long on here before I began editing). I don't claim to know better, but I do know that this system is so flawed that it badly needs changing pronto. I have not been a 'shill for this organization' as you so claim, I have already talked about this, which clearly didn't get around otherwise you would not be accusing me of this. I did the editing on my own, at my own expense with no assistance nor offered any by the Head of Media of Cage Rage UK. The person behind the UCMMA Facebook page kept saying there was no need for me doing the Wikipedia pages, so how can I be a 'shill' when they didn't even want my help. All of the messages I sent about this are on their Facebook group Wall page, which of course with the time gone pass now you would have to keep going down to the bottom of the page and click 'older posts' to find everything to do with the Wikipedia page. Again clearly no-one pays attention to that as you just shown. Let get real for one minute about this promoting thing. Anything to type into Google with have a Wikipedia page in the first page of the search, so its not as if it wouldn't attract the attention of people who see this as a way of getting information about that organisation. Who said it isn't happening for, say, the UFC's page, or Bellator's? I'm the only one that has the balls to admit my motives on here and you call me an unreliable person for that? try hounding down the person/people who does other MMA related pages and see who exactly they are. Whos says that Alistair Overeem's brother isn't editing his page? Is Georges St Pierre's cousin making small edits about his personal life on here? You really don't know anyone's true motives on here, yet you can be assured when I say that if I'm on here for the sport's best interests, believe me, that's exactly why I am on here. And as far as that last thing you said, I'm not even going to address it because it is such a pathetic thing you said. What I will say is that everyone on Wikipedia should be looking to keep information up-to-date and notable, and I did my fair part for it.

Suggestions for improvement for WP:MMANOT page

In fact, I may start by suggesting some improvements to the criteria for fighters and promotions on here, I feel that a fighter can meet criteria when he has fought multiple times for what is considered a second tier promotion/s, at leasts 3-5 times without having to compete for what is considered a major promotion like the UFC? The fighter would also meet criteria if he holds the highest title of a 'second tier' promotion at least once, especially if he is the first to hold the belt, such as Alan Omer, who won the first BAMMA World Featherweight Championship. I think that due to how rapid an MMA promotion can grown within 3 years, I say that with promotion criteria to keep it on Wikipedia, I say that a top/second tier promotion that is/has kept in business for a minimum of 3 years to the date of their first event is considered to have met criteria. Also the amount of well known fighters should not matter for whether or not a promotion is successful or even to meet criteria should be dissolved, as without the smaller promotions no-one would have heard of the fighter, and no matter how many pieces of criteria he does not meet, as long as he has fought for the UFC at least once he is safe. Travis Fulton is a brilliant example of how wrong this system is right now, he has only competed in the UFC just twice out of his 300+ fights yet Alan Omer, who has competed over 10 times, including twice for BAMMA, and won the world championship there can be considered for deletion yet Fulton can remain on here even though he has competed for the UFC only 2 times and seems nowhere near going back there, nor does he seem actually be recognised (I don't think people actually knows he has fought for the UFC before). (BigzMMA 11:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

My biggest issue is how poorly is the list of what a top tier organisation is to what a second tier organisation is is laid out with companies that has only had two events be consider a 'top' promotion whereas EliteXC and Cage Rage, who have just as many recognised fighters as they do and have/had way more events than them be considered a 'second' tier promotion. No matter what happens I want to see this page's criteria and standards to be lowered and rewritten Immediately!!! (BigzMMA 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Please feel free to add to this (BigzMMA 11:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Papaursa made a good point above. As for your example: Travis Fulton has nearly 250 MMA wins, won a World Vale Tudo Championship in Brazil, fought in the early stages of both the UFC and WEC while Alan Omer "has competed over 10 times, including twice for BAMMA". You think that makes Omer more notable? Really? You should also notice that, although you're complaining about fighters being removed, each of the closed AfD discussions had 10+ editors involved. Your desire to overrule consensus because you know better (like in the UCMMA discussion) is counter to WP policy. Astudent0 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to freak out Astudent0 but I moved your paragraph just above this one here because I already had a paragraph written before yours there and would confuse anyone readying them. Those 250 wins, with only TWO UFC fights and ONE WEC fight? staticically that isn't even 1% of all his MMA fights. In those 250 wins, I hardly see many notable fighters, but I can't possibly say it can be more than 5. I do not see any information on him being a Vale Tudo Champion and even if he was, it means nothing towards his position on Wikipedia, imagine a kickboxer on Wikipedia who is hardly known and doesn't much criteria to keep him on here and he has a Muay Thai title, it means nothing towards his case. I've had a look at his whole MMA record, and towards the top he has fought and beat Mike Kofoot SIX TIMES - STRAIGHT apart. He basically beat a nobody 6 times in a row for organisations even the local people may not have heard of. The total number of notable fighters he has fought wouldn't even cover 10% of his total fight record, the guy's only claim to face is 1-1 UFC record, in a time which the UFC calls 'The Dark Ages'. Its a joke he can still keep his spot on here. Alan Omer is the first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, he has there twice out of his 19 fights but at least he has won a major title, according to Travis's page he has never won any championships, even from a deserving minor league within his 250+ wins. Again I don't claim to know better, but I do know when something isn't right, and any idiot with the gift of sight can see the flaws of this page. The criteria is set specifically to allow just the 'top tier' organisations to remain here and anyone else is put on shaky grounds, even if it's promotions like Cage Rage, EliteXC and BAMMA, who have clearly proved that their spot as a major promotion is/was truly earned. (BigzMMA 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

I would take winning a world vale tudo championship (you somehow missed that in his fight record) and competing in both the UFC and WEC over winning a vacant title (hardly a world championship) at the second promotion of a new organization (and losing it at the next fight). If we only kept athletes who were current champions, we'd have to get rid of a lot of athlete's pages. Remember, notability is not temporary, so once you've reached the top you don't lose notability when you're no longer the best. Also, you might be interested to know that putting BAMMA in the top tier was discussed a few months ago and was rejected. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa To say that him being a Vale Tudo champion as a reason to keep him on Wikipedia as a MMA fighter is like apples and oranges, Vale Tudo is Vale Tudo and MMA is MMA, in the same way that I already said how Kickboxing is Kickboxing and Muay Thai is Muay Thai. Even though they all share similar routes, they are all considered their own, independent combat sports and that it don't matter if they cross over each other, if they are listed as one thing, they are that thing, even if they were successful at the other. You can keep saying that he is notable, however, by looking over the criteria currently written for Travis Fulton, it clearly shows that he only meets 1 out of all 3 of the criteria to support notability, as you keep stating as his safe keep card, he has fought for top tier promotions three time, and keep in mind he just barely gets that with ONLY three. He also meets one criteria that supports deletion, which is 'Few fights for notable organizations', which can be used as his overall MMA record shows out of exactly 307 professional MMA bouts only 3 have been in the UFC/WEC. His Vale Tudo/Boxing record doesn't count towards his defence, as these are different sports, as I clearly states earlier, and, just to point it out, despite all the information on his page - he has just FOUR (4) REFERENCES!! two of them are for his Vale Tudo/Boxing records (the boxing record is incomplete on the page and there nothing more about his Vale Tudo record other than just the number of fights he had), one is for his most recent - and probably his most famous fight in Andrei Arlovski, and the forth one dates back to 1999, as in, it was written in 1999, when he was 22 years old and according to the page his record was at the time 41 wins, 11 losses and 4 draws. If you look at his record on Wikipedia when he reaches 41 wins, it says that his record was 41 wins, 9 losses and 3 draws, and it looks like something a child would do on a word document for school work. There is no references to say anything more about his fight record, nothing else to back up his notability and statistically his only notable fights for notable promotions doesn't even cover 1% of his whole MMA record. His page is a JOKE, yet you defend it like he is more important than guys who actually wins major world titles. If you possibly think that this man deserves a place on here based on what is basically ONE criteria supporting notability, then I suggest you change you outlook on how you see what 'notable' is, because many of the guys you have called for deletion are just as notable in terms of meeting similar or the same criteria (some even meet more of them) as Fulton. There is no such thing as a 'trump card' system on here as far as I've seen with all the guidelines I've read, so no-one is more immune than other in the same/similar position just because they have fought three times for one or more top tier promotions out of 307, especially when the page itself is so poorly written and can be strongly considered as inaccurate as well as failing all the other criteria supporting notability.

I am very confused by what you meant when you said 'If we only kept athletes who were current champions, we'd have to get rid of a lot of athlete's pages.' I really don't how to approach this line as it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I have not implied that only champions should keep their positions on here. If a guy has won a top/second tier major title, then that person rightfully deserves to keep his position on here, a point that your using at this minute to defend Travis Fulton from facing deletion, but what I have written above, I don't think you'd doubt me at all nor keep the same standpoint if you actually read it all, and gone over it with a fine tooth comb. In the end, if you won a title for any of the top/second tier organisations that you have listed on here, then you'd know that anyone who wins any of those promotions major belts are instantly notable for Wikipedia, no matter how few time they fought for them, or even how short their reign was. They would be a key point to bring up every time the promotion discusses their divisions and the champion, past and present. That is something you cannot diminish just by saying 'it was too early into the promotion's/fighter's history' Once they done it, they are always going to be recognised. The same can be said about Maurice Smith, who beat Mark Coleman to become the second UFC Heavyweight Champion, yet he lost it right away to Randy Couture, does that mean he's irrelevant? No, he is relevant because he is in the UFC's history, so no matter how many, or few times he's mentioned, he will always be mentioned. The same applies for Alan Omer

BAMMA is growing very rapidly, they are listed as the biggest European MMA promotion in the world, they have been nominated for the Promotion Of The Year award at the Fighters Only World MMA Awards (an award with other nominations including DREAM, Strikeforce, Bellator and the UFC), they have been mentioned on ESPN MMA Live on multiple occasions (if you seen the show, you'd know they only mention all top tier promotions only), they have top ranked fighters in their roster, there is always plenty of reliable articles for their events AND when they make big announcements, such as recently, when they announced their partnership with HDNet in America, Randy Couture is to appear at their next event to sign copies of his new book, the signings of Nate Marquardt and Jimi Manuwa, they have sponsorship deals with companies like Lonsdale. Unlike any other European promotions such as Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW) or even M-1 Global, BAMMA seems to be getting bigger and bigger in terms of popularity in the United States, outgrowing the two examples I just used. They meet ALL criteria supporting their notability on here. What more is there to say that can convince you that BAMMA's true place lies with the top tier organisations right now? Because I don't think it can be ignored, or pushed aside anymore when I say that BAMMA IS TOP TIER. If this still doesn't convince you that BAMMA's current position needs pushing up, the tell me exactly what is it that is not convincing you?

Just occurred to me that many interesting points I made whenever you commented about them (from either me saying them pointing them out or you saying them first) have gone unanswered, do I detect that you don't know how to address them, or is it that your agreeing with me by leaving them out of the conversations now? Not trying to make it sound like a 'personal attack' or anything of the sort but you do look weak right by not saying anything about my comments, especially the ones where I answered your comments. (BigzMMA 10:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Its just when you said things like 'an athlete have competed at the highest level of their sport' and 'It's not about how many minor league games you played in, it's about whether you were good enough to reach the top level.' and I brought up that brilliant comparison about that to what English Football (Soccer) does with the leagues here, you have not brought up an argument against what I said about that. If you just haven't read that yet, please scroll up the page and read what I have to say about this. As well as this you still haven't answered my question, why aren't EliteXC, Cage Rage and BAMMA considered top tier promotions? As I stated they meet ALL criteria supporting their presents on Wikipedia, they are/were clearly popular and media-friendly, lets be honest, way more recognised than the likes of 'Tachi Palace Fights' and 'Ring of Combat'. (BigzMMA)

Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't. But thank you for inadvertently pointing out all the vandalism on Travis Fulton's page. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I find that you are being very rude refusing to answer my comments. I am here for the best interests of all MMA topics and that's why I am I am suggesting that the page gets updated and rewritten. I have made very interesting points and you have chose to ignore them, with most of them can be proved through online sources, such as how big Cage Rage/EliteXC's was and big BAMMA really is right now. I would like to help make this page BETTER, not WORSE, which is why I have brought up the points I have, used multiple promotions/fighters as examples of why they should/shouldn't be on Wikipedia if they continue to follow this system that is in place. Now I am still interested in working with you, however, you must stop saying that I am one-minded, from my suggested layout below, I have kept in line with some of your criteria and kept they layout, which shows that I do agree with you to certain perspective, but I still strongly feel that this page needs improvements (and looking up the page, it's clear I'm not the only one who finds the criteria too harsh), and I want you to help me do that, not fight me at every corner of each suggestion. So may we please now find a way to help improve this page? This is not me backing down, just trying to avoid going back around in circle with you. (BigzMMA 10:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Recommended change to current notability system

Here is what I have in mind as a possible change to the current system, which at the moment is currently flawed and could do with a major shake up. I doubt that it will answer all the problems with the system at the moment or even create new problems, however, the good thing about this talk page is that we call get together and make it more accurate before finalising it. Please imagine from what you read on is actually on the page and everything you see is meant to be there

Organizations

It should be noted that some organisations are bigger in other countries than you know, such as Cage Rage, who is recognised overall as the biggest MMA promotion in the UK and have been in national newspapers and mainstream sports channels, whereas the United States may not have heard of it, so please look fully for information on a promotion carefully before deciding yourself whether that MMA promotion really is un-notable.

Criteria supporting notability

Subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national media (across the country) or international media (across the world), not just local coverage (such as the village or city it was held in).
Has/Have been actively in business and promotes events for a minimum of three years to the date of it's first event - unless the company has gain tremendous popularity within timeframe.
Past/Present champions of promotion has been the subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from either national media or international media, not just local coverage.
Well-known fighters are/have competed for the company, an overall minimum of 12 since first three years of first event.
If information can be found on the promotion's event's results without going to the company's website. Google search is useful and even websites that purely cover MMA related topics can be seen as reliable.

If a promotion meets at least half of these, then they will be considered notable.

Criteria supporting deletion

If the page in question meets WP:GNG, then there is no need to look at this section.

Has only promoted three or less events in existence.
Short history as an organization.
Few notable fighters fight in their events.
Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts.
Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies.

Fighters

Again, fighter can be more popular at different parts of the world to the country you live in, such as Tom 'Kong' Watson is very well known across the UK, whereas the United States may not of heard much/anything about him.

Amateur MMA fighters are not considered notable (unless they can pass WP:GNG under other criteria).

Criteria supporting notability

Subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations. (Also worth noting that any fighters who are on the same event who gets coverage on the same articles can count as notable)
Fought for the highest title of a top/second tier MMA organisation
Won the highest title of a top/second tier MMA organisation
Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations, or five (5) fights under a second tier organisation without having to compete for a top tier organisation.

If a fighter meets at least half of these, they will be recognised as notable.

Also worth noting that any fighter who makes his name from a second tier orgaisation, that has reliable, independent information available for him/her can be considered a notable fighter.

Criteria supporting deletion

If the page in question meets WP:GNG, then there is no need to look at this section.

Only amateur/semi pro bouts
Few fights for notable organizations.

Current list of notable MMA promotions

Keep in mind again that some promotions you may not have heard of nor can watch or get coverage for can be every well known in different parts of the world, such as Bellator, who does not get shown in the UK, but is strongly considered a top tier MMA organisation by Americans.

Top Tier

Affliction Entertainment (now defunct)

Bellator Fighting Championships

British Association of Mixed Martial Arts (BAMMA)

Cage Rage Championships (now defunct)

DREAM

Elite XC (now defunct)

Pride Fighting Championships (now defunct)

ProElite

Shooto

Strikeforce

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)

World Extreme Cagefighting (WEC) (now defunct)

World Victory Road: Sengoku Raiden Championship (now defunct)

Second Tier

Jungle Fight Championship

King of the Cage (KOTC)

Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW)

Maximum Fighting Championship (MFC)

Pancrase

Ring of Combat

Shark Fights

Palace Fighting Championship (now defunct)

Tachi Palace Fights

Titan Fighting Championships

This is the best system I have, which again I will state will not be perfect, but the great idea about what I'm doing is that we can all get together and make it better so that we can end up putting it up as the official system to check MMA promotions/fighters notability. Thank you for reading this, hope we can all work to improve this page (BigzMMA 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

You should realize that the current system was created by everyone coming together and reaching a consensus. Organizations have been added that way. You seem to be unhappy about the results reached by consensus because fighters and organizations you want have been found wanting by this process. Therefore, you're advocating changing everything to suit you. Papaursa told you that BAMMA was discussed a few months ago and it was decided, by consensus, not to move it to the top tier. BTW, neither Papaursa nor I voiced an opinion on that. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed this 'to suit myself' as you keep saying, I have suggested these changes as one or two users (look up the page to see who) feel that the page makes it too difficult for other promotions/fighters to keep their spots on here. Also if you read what Elen of the Roads says at the bottom of the page, she implies that no matter how this page is laid out, that WP:MMANOT doesn't even matter so long as the promotion/fighter meets WP:GNG and can prove it. So if we keep to the criteria of this page (which really is too harsh on even the second tier promotions), or changing them for what I'm offering to soften the criteria for promotion/fighter growth, so long as the page at least meets WP:GNG, it doesn't really matter whether they are the UFC, or BAMMA or ProElite for promotions or fighters such as Chuck Liddell, Tom 'Kong' Watson or Reagan Penn, so long as there is enough coverage on them they should have a spot on Wikipedia. So like I said at the bottom, I believe we can all learn something here and agree that something needs to change somewhere here. Question my suggestions to your hearts content, but the truth is that no-one here, even me, has had the right answer, as it doesn't matter if you fought in the UFC, or if your Alistair Overeem, as enough media coverage will give you a spot on Wikipedia, no matter how big or small the promotion/fighter is. BigzMMA 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)
Of course WP:GNG trumps everything else. That's in the guidelines and has been reiterated many times. That's why 9 fighters just survived an AfD discussion despite lacking the number of fights specified. The point is that consensus rules and so far you seem to want to ignore the consensus opinion on fighters and organizations. After things like UCMMA were voted on, you promptly reposted the article because you claimed to know best--"I don't think anyone who participated in the debate really understood." Astudent0 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why must I keep having to defend guys like Alan Omer, Tim Newman and Reagan Penn when they meet WP:GNG? Please reword 'consensus opinion on fighter and organisations.' Cant understand what you mean by it.

The short answer is that they didn't meet WP:GNG in the opinions of most of the people--that's what consensus is. Astudent0 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not repost the UCMMA page because 'I knew best'. UCMMA is a notable organisation, as there are many articles on it under its current and previous names such as 'Ultimate Challenge UK', 'Ultimate Challenge MMA (UCMMA)' and now 'Cage Rage UK'. It is the only MMA promotion shown on Sky Sports in the UK, which is without a doubt the biggest sporting channel in the UK, which airs the Premier League, NFL amongst other major sports. Ask anyone from the UK and they will tell you Sky Sport is the most recognised sports channel here. So if a MMA promotion is shown here, there will be articles about it. It shows their chat show on there (again reliable sources can be found about it), they have had fighters under them ranging from Neil Grove, Mark Weir and Brad Pickett, to James McSweeney, John Maguire (fighter) and Jimi Manuwa. There are plenty of articles about each of their events from when they are shown, and everyone in the UK agrees that UCMMA is in the top 3 MMA promotions in the UK, along side BAMMA and Cage Warriors. Once again all facts, all easy enough to find through Google.

So basically it wasn't researched and no-one particularly looked into it, so I ask of you to look up the promotion again, this time use all the names used by the promotion, and to look under the 'News' search, which is on the right column where it says 'Everything' and look under that until you see 'News'. Also make sure whatever you type, before you click on 'News', to add " at the beginning of the first word and the end of the last word so it will look for the full name collected for more accurate results. I promise you that you will find many results on UCUK/UCMMA/Cage Rage UK. Matter of fact, I will give you the link to save you time -

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22ucmma%22&pbx=1&oq=%22ucmma%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12056l12056l2l12276l1l1l0l0l0l0l142l142l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=711679b2427ab5c5&biw=1024&bih=677 - the Google search result you get for UCMMA, and one article you maybe interested in is this next one

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/934886-the-uk-mma-community-unites-to-positively-portray-the-noble-martial-arts - Prove how big UCMMA are consider on 'the other side of the pond'. I will also give you this one as well to prove the UCMMA-Sky Sports deal exists

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/wrestling-wwe-ufc-mma/2010/07/ucmma-and-sky-sports-partner-u.html

Remember, the promotion doesn't have to be the most well known, nor the most recognised, so long as there is plenty of reliable and notable sources on them they can have a spot on Wikipedia, enjoy reading them. BigzMMA 20:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

URCC was just added to the second tier of events and it's been around for a decade. Organizations get added when it can be shown there is significant independent coverage. Here's a suggestion--recreate the UCMMA article in your sandbox and make sure it has good independent sources. Then ask some of the veteran MMA editors to look and comment on it. People would rather add than delete articles, but you have to show them notability and independent sources. Be aware that articles that just report results do not support notability (see WP:ROUTINE). Astudent0 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then I will do that, however, I will say when it is ready to be seen, so then you and other editors will be able to read it. BigzMMA 09:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Trump Card System must be abandoned

Now some people are wondering what I mean by a 'Trump Card System', well it simple really, everyone knows the Top Trump card game, where theres always a card that statically beats another card in one area of the stats of the card (for example, say theres a Brock Lesnar card and a Alistair Overeem card, Brock would have a higher score on grappling but Overeem would have a higher striking score).

Well this system is currently being used to decide whether a promotion/fighter is notable or not through the criteria, and it seems that certain criteria are used to decide if they are more notable because of a certain criteria. I have noticed that fighters/promotion who meet at least one criteria to keep it on Wikipedia, for example, a fighter has been 'Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations', yet they may not of competed in, say, the UFC and they haven't won a major title in MMA and they can be considered for deletion. Now if a fighter has not had multiple articles written about him nor won any major world titles, yet they have competed in the UFC at least once, they seem to be immune from any conversation that calls for the page to be deleted. This make me think that, despite all these criteria are set clearly to say whos notable, there seems to be some criteria that is more notable than others, which is unacceptable. I strongly disagree with this system and that any promotion or fighter who meets at least one criteria to keep them should make them just as immune. Remember Wikipedia isn't runned on limited space so it isn't as if we need to cut back on space, even if there was limited space on here, I don't think MMA topics is running the highest bill right now. Anything that meets at least one criteria and doesn't meet too many criteria for deletion shouldn't be considered for deletion, even if the promotion isn't UFC or the fighter isn't there or hasn't been there yet. BigzMMA 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that you are simply not understanding Notability as it is employed on Wikipedia (and it is possible that a couple of other editors are having a similar problem). The base standard for notability is WP:GNG - subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. If a topic has this, then it is always notable in Wikipedia terms. In addition to this, certain standards have been developed for such as sports people, academics etc, which contain a presumption that if a person has eg played for their country, been awarded a University Chair etc, that they will be notable and will have, or will acquire, the coverage as defined in WP:GNG.

What should be noted by both yourself and anyone nominating an article for deletion is that the project standards do not trump WP:GNG. If a topic has significant coverage in independent sources it can reasonably expect to retain an article, even if it does not meet a project standard. At the moment, cage fighters and professional wrestlers fall under WP:ENTERTAINER (although I believe the project is trying to come up with its own standards, which it can submit to the community), so if your fighter either -

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (I believe the large competitions you are describing would fall under these descriptions)

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

And you can evidence this with references to independent sources, then there should be no problems in retaining the article. Your deleted articles were very light on independent sources - anything that relies only on press releases and advertising is going to struggle to demonstrate notability.

I hope this helps.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your say Elen of the Roads, I appreciate the honesty and the unbiased approach you took. I always understood the WP:GNG guide and have always done my best to make all pages I created follow it. I find that the criteria on this page is actually countering this policy, as fighters who follow the basic notable guide has had national/international attention and coverage, but some people believe that one or two criteria beats that, which seems to be whether or not they had at least one fight in a 'top tier' promotion. I would have to disagree with you with one thing though, and that is when you said that mixed martial artists should fall under WP:ENTERTAINER, as MMA fighters are sports athletes first before entertainers, though there isn't a part on Wikipedia:Notability (sports) that says anything about MMA, though certain martial arts such as Boxing and Sumo are on that page so I may get into the discussion on that to have MMA added in.

I admit that for many of the articles I did not add much detail into it and add in references to back them up, but because I was putting up so many well known fighters across the United Kingdom, as well as recognised faces such as Reagan Penn I thought I'd start off the page by putting in basic information, including MMA record and basic referenced information on them, and then once I done that, I pretty much created a 'snow ball' effect where everyone else who writes for Wikipedia can add to it and add the references and all. That is what happened with some of my created pages like Jimi Manuwa and Cory Tait so I'd assumed that at least most of those pages would of had some people adding information and references to them to make them better. It wasn't that I was too lazy to do them, I just had so many created and I just didn't have the time, plus trying to save the UCMMA/Cage Rage UK main page took up all my time on here before I was blocked throughout the rest of the time the debate continued until the was deleted the day before I was unblocked.

But anyway, thanks again for the advice, hopefully we can all learn something on here BigzMMA 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Fighter(s) article(s) needing deletion if we're gonna follow WP:MMA to the T

Okay let's see:

Criteria supporting notability:

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations
Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization
Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations

That is according to this project page. Now what about fighters like Papy Abedi ?? He has only ONE (1) fight in the UFC yet has an article. Hell, the article was made even before he got in. So what makes him notable with simply one fight, if we're gonna follow this?

KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIANLLY, someone whos talking sense :D well then, if users want to follow this system to the T, then I say lets follow every point to meet criteria then? So KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP, if you'd like to nominate some pages to begin with I will gladly put my input into it, and decide if it meets ALL criteria set on this page. BigzMMA (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it doesn't appear to pass the WP:MMANOT standard, however he does appear to pass the WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG tests so it's not a failing with the needlelike focused MMANOT, it's a success of the graduated notability system. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anyone who would claim every MMA fighter and organization listed on WP is notable. If you think someone or something is not notable, then put the article up for AfD. That's how WP decides on these things--community discussion and consensus. Papaursa (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he can be nominated for deletion through this system Hasteur, if the AfD cases I showed you before doesn't prove that people are putting WP:MMANOT over other, more important systems like WP:GNG, then does this? He has had only one UFC fight, and it is simply because of this and the articles that relates to him through only this event that can still make him considered to keep him on here through GNG, yet MMANOT says otherwise, but people are choosing rather than following the system they want to imply on the fighter. There are users out there who actually don't give much consideration for policies, guidelines and rules outside the ones they accept the most, and this is one that people are choosing to follow the most!

This is exactly what I mean when I say this guideline is very misleading and strict, as it doesn't allow all pages to remain on here, yet similar pages in terms of accomplishments, how many times they fought or even how many articles are there on him/her, because as I said before, a trump card system is very much in place and people are currently choosing a page that has just one single top tier promotion fight as the winning card over another page that has multiple articles on the person. BigzMMA (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the event section

I have reverted the change to the event section as it could be interpreted to change the meaning, while I can see where the editor is coming from, I think we need a discussion on expanding the section to make it clearer, in line with other Event notability guidelines that just having sources is not in and of its self sufficient, an article needs to demonstrate the events historical and encyclopaedic significance. Mt king^(edits) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no complaints with OSU's modification. While I did not participate in the discussions of the creation of this essay, I did monitor those discussions when they occurred. I believe the intent was to say that "MMA events are not inherently (WP:INHERENT) notable". Some editors believe that UFC events are automatically notable because it is a UFC event, or that an event is notable because it has notable fighters participating, etc. This, I belive, is wrong. Events and articles about the events may be notable if they comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT, etc). --TreyGeek (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps should have made my thinking clearer, in and of it's self I have no issue with the wording, however I can see how others might use the change to twist the meaning of the section, and so to avoid that, I think a more detailed re-wording might be appropriate :

Individual events are not inherently considered notable because on the whole the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the events lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

Mt king^(edits) 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support of MtKing's expansion of MMA event notability section. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support MtKing's modificiation of the MMA event notability section. I must admit that, at the time this essay was written, the issue of concern was fighter notability, not event notability, so most of the discussion was about fighters (with some additional discussion about organizations). Papaursa (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the modification proposed above. It includes the word "inherently", which was missing IMO. The detailed explanation in the second half of this sentence seems consistent with wiki guidelines. I'm not in favor of deleting event articles for top-tier promotions, but I do feel that this change is at least an improvement over the existing wording and addresses the change I made to the notability guidelines that was reverted by the editor who started this thread. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibus articles

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}}.

I really think that instead of having dozens of AFDs for individual events, the best way forward is to consider combining coverage in omnibus articles, such as "MMA events in 2011" or something like that. In this way, readers are given a "road map" of related content, and there is no worry about particular events being notable enough as they are but aspects of the wider, obviously notable, umbrella subject. Those events that are most obviously notable unto themselves can have brief mentions with {{main}} used to direct users to the stand alone articles. I therefore would ask the following of both those who want to keep and those who want t delete these many MMA articles that have been flooding AFD: Please suspend debating the individual articles and consider this idea. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed omnibus article plan. Mt king^(edits) 19:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This idea has been discussed at the MMA WikiProject but hasn't seemed to gain a lot of traction. I have drafted an example 2012 in UFC events in my sandbox. There has been some positive comments about it from some non-MMA Wikiproject folks. Maybe I should just be WP:BOLD and create the article. I guess I'm afraid to see the flack that results from the individual articles being redirected to the 'year in' article (and the potential edit wars from IPs and the WP:IDONTLIKEIT folks). Suggestions? Encouragement to go forward? --TreyGeek (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it, if we get into a edit war situation with IP's et. al. then we ask any of the number of admins who have helped out to step in and protect the redirects, the bottom line here is that there is such a clear policy, guideline and common scene position here that any uninvolved or not admin would see that without clear evidence of meeting WP:MMAEVENT any attempt at undoing the revert is just being disruptive. Feel free to drop me a note at my talk if I can help out in any way. Mt king^(edits) 22:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done 2012 in UFC events has been created in mainspace. I was about to say "only 18 more years of articles to create". However some of the earlier years wouldn't make sense. 1993 in UFC events would include only a single event, 1994 had three events, 1995 four events, 1996 five events and I'll stop counting. It may be easier to work backwards and figure out how to deal with the earlier years later.

See comment below for a possible solution to that. Mt king^(edits) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Articles titled similar to List of Central Texas World Championship Cage Fighting events should be list-class articles (because of the title) and contain relatively little prose, particularly in comparison to 2012 in UFC events. Correct? Assuming we were to combine event articles for lesser notable promotions (ProElite, BAMMA, Impact Fighting Championships to randomly choose a few) who only hold one or two events per year what would be the suggested article title? Again, I was randomly choosing promotions so they may be bad examples in terms of notability, but for sake of argument, I'm wondering what the answer is. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below for a possible solution to that. Mt king^(edits) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support omnibus articles Putting the UFC events for a year together in one article is a reasonable compromise. For lesser organizations, it's a tougher call. I don't have have a problem with "List of XXX events" for organization XXX, but I don't think WP is the place for more details about events by minor organizations. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could do something along the lines of 2012 in MMA which would summarise all promoters events, in the case of UFC it would have a brief section on the highlights of the year and a {{Main}} to the 2012 in UFC events article, this could also help out for years when a given promoter has few events such as 1994 for the UFC or when the promoter only runs a few given their location constraints. Mt king^(edits) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of having a 2012 in mixed martial arts events that subdivides for the larger, more active promotions seems reasonable to me. It even works for 1993 in mixed martial arts events as it would apparently include four Pancrase events in addition to UFC 1 (Category:1993 in mixed martial arts) before considering events that don't have articles already. Something that Papaursa said at the start of the "year in" article discussion on the MMA WikiProject talk page was the potential length of 2012 in UFC events. It's 45k in size now and there is potentially still a lot more content to come just in terms of additional events and main events. Building off Mtking's idea and an idea that Glock had on my talk page we'd potentially have a hierarchy of omnibus articles similar to:

2012 in mixed martial arts events	2012 in UFC events	2012 in UFC on FX events
		2012 in UFC on Fox events
		2012 in UFC on Fuel TV events
	Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six
	2012 in Strikeforce events
	2012 in Super Fight League
	More if there are other very active promotions

Those three categories of UFC events and their couple/few paragraphs of prose for each event would be split off from the main UFC events article into their own sub-article. It would leave the "numbered" UFC events and the TUF 15 finale in the main UFC events article and potentially shorter. Very active promotions such as Bellator, Strikeforce and presumably SFL (judging from their desired event schedule) would have their own omnibus articles. In other years, promotions such as WEC, Dream, and Hero's could have their own "year in" article when they were particularly active. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seams a good starting point. Mt king^(edits) 09:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, nice job ruining a perfectly great resource. Now no one can know the history of fights that got scrapped or even just the plain results. This list idea is terrible and I can't believe three days of "debate" allowed you to do this. Udar55 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - I agree with Udar55. Action was taken before this debate is over. The new omnibus omits info. I stumbled onto this topic via BigMMA, and don't know much about it. A whole bunch of these becoming a single this is a major change, and deserves a longer debate. Heck, merging two simple articles means waiting at least a few weeks. This happened in a few days. And, in my opinion, the old, separate articles were better, and deserve articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a major change, what it is, is applying existing wiki-wide consensus to the topic, it allows for any event that can be shown to have lasting effect to have a stand alone article, the others have a section in an Omnibus article. We don't have an article for every MLB game or every MLS game, so why do we have one for every UFC event ? Mt king^(edits) 06:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are grasping at straws with the MLB argument. There are literally thousands of MLB games in a season, whereas the UFC puts on 20ish events a year.Hollaluuie (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the rationale, it is indeed a major change. Plus, when a discussion is started, it must be given time before action is taken. Beeblebrox suggested this at 18:13, 28 March 2012, and you added

Done at 05:10, 29 March 2012. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much time is needed? An AfD was closed two weeks ago by User:DGG suggesting that a "list of" events article would be appropriate. The overall issue with non-notable MMA event articles has been an ongoing issue for more than a year. I'm curious as to how long AfD discussions should go on before it is allowed to try to rectify the overall situation. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL@ "how much time is needed"! You came into this omnibus discussion with the mindset that you were already going to change it. After you and Mtking slapped each other's backs, you made the edits swiftly by implying you saw "more and more support" for the omnibus style article. In one fell swoop, you removed everything and most of the reasons why people come to Wikipedia for UFC information (buy rates, attendance figures, payouts, background on cancelled fights).Udar55 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This formal and centralized discussion right here over omnibus vs individual articles just started. What DGG suggested some time back in some other location, and the overall ongoing issue has led to this discussion. This is the hexagon, or octopus, or whatever it's called. This is where it finally gets decided, right? This discussion should be allowed to stay open for a week or more. Let the chips fall as they may. I can live with the omnibus or the individual articles. What I care about is consensus, and due process. A 24-hr discussion is not due process. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anna on this, the discussion should have been given more time, not just to gauge consensus, but to be able to show consensus, because it is clear that this change will bring questions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination) "UFC holds ±23 PPV events per year, which is about one every 2-3 weeks. In my view having an article about each event is akin to having an article about each week in an NFL football season" and to keep the UFC articles out of AfD by supplying the information in a common area.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the way Trey and MT were doing it was that they were just including 5 broad/vague lines about each event, which if you look at the info required to understand an event, it's quite poor. I wouldn't mind a single page with all of the events on it however you'd still need to include ALL of the information previously shown on the individual event pages. Eidetic Man (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Support I don't think anyone will have an issue with a single or multiple event pages as long as they still have all of the information they always did. (i.e. results, fight times, walk in music, buy rates, gate, attendance and other info) The lack of this is generally what is upsetting people. I agree that 20+ single pages for UFC events a year can get hefty however all of the results should be compacted into one single page at worst. This way, there will be no complaints, rather people will just adjust. The format that Trey and MT wanted to implement was poor and SEVERELY lacked useful information and frankly it just became a large wall of useless text. Eidetic Man (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Support donotwant.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.12.184 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The old articles were fine there was no need to change them! Not only did a vast majority of people love the old articles, they learned from them, and what they learned was useful. This 2012 in UFC events has no useful information what so ever. It lacks the most important part of a UFC article, and that is the fight results and upcoming fights. And no, that doesnt make Wikipedia a stats book or a newspaper, it tells about the most important part of an MMA related article, the fights! Thats what the people watch MMA for in the 1st place! And to say ANY UFC event is not notable is ludacris, because thousands of people watch each UFC event. If thats not notable, I dont know what is. We dont want this 2012 in UFC events shoved down our throats, we prefer the old way which has worked for years. If it aint broke, dont fix it! Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This would appear to be 100% consistent with the statements made by closing admins on the various AFDs on MMA subjects. It doesn't prevent any stand alone article on an event that is clearly notable, and puts the more marginal events together where the information can still be here on Wikipedia, while making it more accessible and usable AND more likely to be within the guidelines of WP:N. I'm open minded as to the final layout and separation, but this is certainly a move in the right direction. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, nice job ruining a perfectly great resource. Now no one can know the history of fights that got scrapped or even just the plain results. This list idea is terrible and I can't believe three days of "debate" allowed you to do this. Udar55 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert the pages to the old format. It was far easier to follow and also made it easier to view other information about the event (fighters, locations and many other bits of info) The layout is not so much the issue as the lack of this information which we all like to know as it means we can find past fights of a new fighter easier and the like. Ctrlchris (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:COMMON and block any account trying to force this through before this discussion has closed. Enough said. Spyder Grove (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Also, I've nominated 2012 in UFC events for deletion since it was done on a whim and without approval (or even a real debate).Udar55 (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"strong oppose" What is wrong with you people. You have made a knowlege rich infomation bank reduced to nothing. There was coutless media coverage on each event. This is nothing more than lazyness or a power trip. Last time i checked that is not what wikipedia stands for. 68.59.127.207 (talk)Thecrow1313 —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Strong oppose" Terrible change of something that didn't need or wanted to be changed. Rm92 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What people are failing to address in their opposition is how the individual articles meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There has been little offered to show that an MMA event on its own is notable, that the articles provide "well sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT, that the article contain more than WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results, and that they provide anything more than news and statistics (WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:FUTURE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). I'd be more open to listening to comments if they could say something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that useless wall of text you made beats the old system? It doesn't matter what we say because you will just try and twist wikipedia policy in your favor, explain how the old system violated ANY policy. Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment where do we go to report mods? You clearly dont listen to anything we have to say. If this is not the place where we can say "i dont like it" feel free to direct me to the proper place. 68.59.127.207 (talk) Thecrow1313

Strong oppose This is a terrible idea. It takes away the entire point of going to the individual event pages. This gives no ability to provide in depth background of the event and makes sifting through an enormous eyesore of an omnibus page to break out individual fight results heinously painful and tedious. What value does this even provide? I think the way it is now with an article per page is great. It provides solid background information per event, the bout results, bonuses, walk out music, the pay outs, and other awesome information. There will be absolutely no value whatsoever in a small blurb of a paragraph explains the event briefly in a large omnibus page. As someone who frequents many of the UFC, Pride, and WEC fight pages regularly, I will just goto Sherdog from now on because its much more digestible as a single source for event data. Pull lead (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Kaizenyorii —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Okay, here's my rationale at the moment. Maybe it's flawed, so feedback is welcome.

There is a long list of WP:XXX guidelines that say these stand-alone articles are notable, and a long list that say they are not. So, guidelines alone cannot decisively solve this.

What may solve this is fundemental reasoning: This is an encyclopedia here to serve visitors. This content is mainly useful to, and valued by, people interested in UFC. The content should be presented in a way that they want. Sherdog forum members typify these people, I think. I investigated the site from a post at Mtking's talk page. They, and numerous others here seem to overwhelmingly prefer the individual articles.

Serving visitors per WP:IAR trumps the approach of comparing pro and con guideline lists. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the stand-alone articles in question got tons of traffic. I really think it would be a mistake to remove them:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, the attempt with the omnibus article is to discuss significant happenings of the events with prose so that they are informative without being simply a list of results, trivia (such as walk in music), and statistics. Having omnibus articles does not mean individual events which are notable cannot have their own page. Rather it is an attempt at giving non-notable events a place. If users want to put in the time to improve individual event articles so that they are not simply a list of results and stats, they are welcome to. If there are specific ideas you or others have for improving the omnibus articles, I'd love to hear them. So, far the only thing I've seen is that people prefer a list of results as opposed to reading prose. However, the Wikipedia community has decided that Wikipedia is not a stats book. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking if you think "the only thing I've seen is that people prefer a list of results as opposed to reading prose." Your omnibus article completely removed many factors of why people visit those pages frequently. Namely, people like to know the event's history (matches that got scrapped/altered), buy rates, attendance numbers, live gates, etc. For example, instead of history of UFC 142: Aldo vs. Mendes that the original page offered, you just changed it to a few paragraphs that basically said, "At this even Jose Aldo beat Chad Mendes. There were some other fights too." Wow, thanks! What you did is akin to someone changing Star Wars: A New Hope's detailed history to "This film is about Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader. It was popular." Udar55 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trey. Well, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", i.e. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK doesn't quite apply. "NOTSTATSBOOK" sounds like it applies, but the guideline really doesn't talk much about that. As far as these standalones being just stats, they also have a poster image, prose, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, you claim above there is a "long list of WP:XXX guidelines that say these stand-alone articles are notable" - please list them as I cant see any, in fact a number of the closing admin comments at the AfD's have pointed out those seeking to keep the articles have not quoted any poilicy or guidelines in their arguments. Mt king^(edits) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, I think you are mistaken in your claim that there are lots of policies that support the inclusion of most of these stand alone articles. That is the reason they have been sent to AFD and deleted. Recently, several admins and users have developed this omnibus idea as a way to preserve the less notable and future events, somewhat shielding them from instant deletion. Wikipedia's WP:GNG is still the king when it comes to inclusion, the subpages are only meant to offer guidance. WP:RS hasn't been relaxed for MMA events either. The criteria is the same for an articles here. MMA articles are often only referenced by sites quoting statistics or forums. These clearly fall short of the requirements of WP:RS, and outside of the MMA discussions, stand alone articles that only use these types of sources are quickly deleted. While many of the MMA fans might not agree, the community as a whole does. The omnibus articles, with redirects, is the solution. Independent articles can only exist if they pass WP:GNG, like all other articles here, ie: they have multiple and significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject matter. I don't know much about MMA, but I do know a little about what the consensus of the community is when it comes to "multiple", "significant" "reliable" and "independent", and what is and isn't acceptable. Once you filter out all the socks and meatpuppets at the previous AFDs (which we now have a team doing), the consensus becomes very clear and one sided. This is why the omnibus articles and redirects are important, as this is the only way to salvage the information. Otherwise, they will be deleted, one by one, with a few exceptions for the events that actually do meet the criteria here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"MMA articles are often only referenced by sites quoting statistics or forums." You have said often that you don't follow MMA and this statement proves it. Nearly all of the sources quoted in UFC event pages come from the official UFC site and MMA news sites, not places just "quoting statistics or forums." Reference sites such as UFC.com, ESPN, Yahoo, Sherdog, MMA Junkie and MMA Fighting clearly fall under WP:NEWSORG. That is more than most movies and books get on this site (when are you going to start policing them?). Regarding AfD notices, go back and see that nearly every one placed on a UFC event has been by Mtking, the same guy who spearheaded this "reform" campaign and provided TreyGeek's sole back slapper. I clearly established the events as notable entertainment products for him further down on this page. To repeat it, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, you can read the following simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Udar55 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do not allow TreyGeek and MtKing to throw the rule book at you, if they do, show them this! WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
Opposed to the new system. I use wikipedia extensively to read about MMA events and MMA fighters, and now it seems content is mashed into one gigantic article. Chaotic, and definitely a step back from the previous and original way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.249.5 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far it's pretty obvious that only Trey and MtKing want to do the omnibus thing and everyone else (who constitute the vast majority of users) don't want this. I understand you guys think you run some sort of little empire here, but the fact that each event having a stand alone article is a total valid style of organization in accordance with the guidelines highlighted by Anna. Move on to something else and stop wasting everyone's time. The omnibus is a bad idea, period. Leave it at that. Pull lead (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, TreyGeek is always going on and on about consensus being reached to defend his changes (I think maybe two people agreed with him). Yet we don't see him addressing the overwhelming opposition that has shown up here since his unwarranted move. It is glaringly obvious from this real debate that most people prefer the old system. Udar55 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to address the opposition is all WP:IDONTLIKEIT of the new, not a single poilicy or guideline (other than WP:IAR) has been putforward either here or at any AfD on the article pages. Mt king^(edits) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, chances are you won't even listen to reasons listed, but I'll give it a shot. Broken down to its core, the UFC is a company that delivers a entertainment product, much like the WWE, Simon & Schuster and countless movie studios. It is something that is made commercially available to the general public through PPV and then DVDs of the product can be purchased online at places such as Amazon.com. As a tangible product, it easily falls under the WP:GNG policy. Also, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, you can read the following simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Using that easy to understand criteria, I think it is safe to say each UFC event passes the notability guidelines easily. Curiously, I don't see you starting a campaign to eliminate the pages for every WWE PPV, John Grisham novel or Lionsgate theatrical release. Udar55 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If every UFC event were notable then the following AfDs would have been closed keep, but they weren't:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 152 result redirect to 2012 in UFC events#UFC 152
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 154 result redirect to 2012 in UFC events#UFC 154
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 (2nd nomination) result redirect to 2012 in UFC events
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination) result no consensus with closing admin suggesting a merge into an omnibus article.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 result merge to location to be determined with admin suggesting a year in article.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 result was delete.

As far as relating UFC event articles to WWE event articles, the WWE event articles seem to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they don't contain only routine fight results and announcements. Just take a look at the contents of the wrestling WikiProject's C class articles: Royal Rumble (1988), Starrcade (1997), Bragging Rights (2009), Armageddon (2002). Tell me that our (MMA WikiProject) event articles come anywhere near as close to covering the events in the same amount of prose discussing the event with the same level of detail, citing an equivalent number of sources. I believe that if we cannot have our event articles (regardless of the promotion) come close to being a high quality article (again, I'll point to UFC 94 which is a good quality article) then a "year in" article is the best way to go. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really using articles that were deleted because they existed well before their time (UFC 152 and 154 are months away and not a single match announced) to prove your point? As for the level of detail in articles, the original UFC 142 had way more detail than the UFC 142 write up you offered in the yearly page. Do you really think the original UFC pages only had "routine fight results and announcements."

Regardless, your boy Mtking asked for policy and guidelines and I provided that. Then -- shocker! -- you move the goalposts and say, "But the UFC pages aren't as thorough as the WWE ones." So what? How does that have any bearing on the notability I established? More people saw the aforementioned UFC 142 live and on PPV than something like WWE's December to Dismember (2006). Are you seriously contending that only a bunch of extra words in a Wiki article makes something more notable? If so, you better jump on -- picks random entertainment products -- Tactical Force or Dragon Tears because both only have scant details on them. After that, I expect you to peruse every entertainment product on Wikipedia and then get back to me to let me know if they all have as many words as the WWE pages. Udar55 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I listed 6 AfDs and you commented on only two of them. The prose in UFC 142 seems to consist of reporting of routine fight announcements and changes plus Johnson coming in overweight (which is discussed to some degree in the omnibus article). Also, if someone feels additional information is needed in 2012 in UFC events they are free to add it. I'll freely admit there may be a significant fight on a particular card that I over looked. The comparison between the MMA event articles and the WWE event articles was started by you. Maybe I should have expanded my thought process. WP:ROUTINE says that an article should not contain routine news coverage such as announcements and sporting coverage. WP:SPORTSEVENT say that "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose". The vast majority of MMA event articles contain simply routine coverage of fight announcements and a list of stats in the form of fight results. They lack well-sourced prose that explains why the event is notable or why it has lasting effects. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The comparison between the MMA event articles and the WWE event articles was started by you" Actually, I made the comparison between UFC events and three separate entertainment product companies (WWE, Simon & Schuster, Lionsgate). I also mentioned two other products (Tactical Force or Dragon Tears) with scant prose that are readily accepted on Wikipedia for comparison purposes. You then made the ridiculous assertion that because the WWE articles have more text, they are somehow more notable. Once again, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, there is this simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Simply put, Mtking asked for reason of notability and I established that. Then, as I predicted, you guys ignored the evidence given to you and cried, "They're not as big as WWE articles, therefore they are not notable." Color me shocked. Udar55 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the best solution then to improve the individual event pages that the MMA community prefers rather than getting rid of them entirely? We could add a nice background section to every event like the one UFC 94 has. Hollaluuie (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would. However, very few people are doing that and it's taken me some time just to get as far as I have with UFC 140. No one who is advocating for the omnibus articles has said events cannot have their own individual articles. Rather, unless that event can be shown to be notable and can have an article written to comply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the omnibus article is a good alternative. The additional benefit of omnibus articles is that events from promotions that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines can still have information about it in the omnibus article. Examples are 2012 in Super Fight League and 2012 in mixed martial arts events (which needs more added to it). --TreyGeek (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The omnibus articles work for smaller promotions, but the UFC events are notable enough to warrant their own pages. The prose you've written as event summaries on the UFC omnibus article can easily be included on the event articles. Hollaluuie (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right again. If someone wants to spend time working on improving individual event articles, the prose I've put in 2012 in UFC events would probably be a good way to start. What in the meantime? Have a bunch of articles that fail to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and could possibly be deleted as a result? (See the AfD list I put above as examples of how this is starting to happen.) Also, just to be sure I understand you, you are in support of omnibus articles for MMA events as long as it's not for UFC events. Or am I misconstruing what you stated? --TreyGeek (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) in response to Udar55 - are not the NFL, NBA and MLB also companies that deliver an entertainment product ? But we don't have an article for each game they put on do we ? The truth is as each of these events ends, it is forgotten and they move onto the next. Mt king^(edits) 23:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the NFL, NBA and MLB charge for each and every product (game) on PPV and then release them commercially on DVD to stores? No, they do not. In most cases, it is broadcast to the public for free. The UFC releases products just like a movie studio. Therefore the product should be treated as such. Udar55 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may not in the US, but access to thoes sports outside the US is quite often PPV or subscription TV, also a number of other top sports around the world do use PPV, and we still do not have articles on the each or every games/match. Mt king^(edits) 00:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are framing it as sports issue rather than an entertaining product issue. How are UFC PPV events and DVD releases any different from the various Hellraiser sequels hitting DVD or Dean Koontz books on the shelves? I see no difference between these two pages:

You are grasping at straws. There are thousands of MLB games in a season, whereas the UFC has 20ish events. Hollaluuie (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL is a 21 round season, there is one article for the season and one for the Super bowl, not one for each round, the same model is used for other professional sports that play all round the world, soccer, rugby (both codes), Aussie rules, so this proposal just mimics what is established practice. Mt king^(edits) 00:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but MTking putting UFC articles up for deletion and then pushing for an omnibus so that individual UFC articles don't get deleted is slimy and deceitful. One person came along, TreyGeek, and agreed. Then they took it upon themselves to change the entire UFC section of Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You two guys are also acting like everybody is on board with you. And when it is pointed out that nobody is on board with you, you retort with "Wikipedia is not a democracy". The nerve... Gamezero05 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ this is based on merit, not a majority decision. This is two users on a power trip who went against Wiki policy and didn't gauge the consensus of anyone in the talk page before deleting/merging articles. I've been a part of the Mixed Martial Project on Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years and this is the worst edit to the project I've ever seen. EvolutionarySleeper (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, what they have done is take the lead to prevent further deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination) made it clear that the only alternatives to merging into an omnibus system was outright deletion. There already is a strong consensus in the community, by editors who are normally not involved with MMA articles, like myself. Several editors that were against the change are already coming around to appreciate the changes. What is happening is that the WP:GNG policies are being enforced. The subpages of notability can't have a lower threshold for notability than the parent. This will still allow individual pages for events that are clearly notable, with the advantage of NOT having the future events and less covered events deleted due to a lack of significant coverage, from multiple and independent sources, which is required by any reading of GNG. In the end, there will be MORE MMA info available, not less. Everyone is just jumping to conclusions on what the changes mean before seeing the final product. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I addressed you above but got no response, so here it is again. Nearly all of the sources quoted in UFC event pages come from the official UFC site and MMA news sites, not places just "quoting statistics or forums" like you said earlier. Reference sites such as UFC.com, ESPN, Yahoo, Sherdog, MMA Junkie and MMA Fighting clearly fall under WP:NEWSORG. That is more than most movies and books get on this site (when are you going to start policing them?) and clearly passes WP:GNG. Regarding AfD notices, go back and see that nearly every one placed on a UFC event has been by Mtking, the same guy who spearheaded this "reform" campaign and provided TreyGeek's sole back slapper. I clearly established the events as notable entertainment products for him. To repeat it, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, you can read the following simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Simply put, how is a UFC event listing any different from an entry for a film or book in a series? If you goal is to enforce WP:GNG (which is laughable), why aren't you policing all of the film and book entries with one or zero sources? Please explain to me how an entry for UFC 142 is any different from a book entry for something like Dragon Tears. Udar55 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break #1

ATTN: TreyGeek, Mtking, Dennis Brown You keep saying that individual UFC pages are in violation of WP: GNG. I established otherwise and also showed that the pages easily pass the primary criteria for notability as they are an entertainment product released commercially to the general public and covered by a wealth of secondary sources. I ask you this, how is a UFC event page any different from the pages for the following products, which are all deemed notable by Wikipedia's standards (randomly chosen book, films and events):

If those entries, which I'm sure draw far fewer hits than UFC pages, are allowed on Wikipedia with few or no sources, why aren't individual UFC pages (which usually have tons of sources)? Do the aforementioned examples not past the muster of WP: GNG that you so valiantly defend? I wouldn't dare say you are just bending the WP: GNG policy to aid in your quest. Also, TreyGeek, stop redirecting the pages of individual events to your omnibus page. Consensus has not been reached (LOL @ your comment about there being "few objectors" and "copyright violation," as if you didn't copy the original pages to get the results).

Hi Udar55. I'll field this one. But first, uncivil remarks like "...LOL @ your comment..." will not serve your cause. These folks have different views, but that does not mean they deserve abuse. They've been admirably tolerant of incivility and attacks. Please be polite.

Now, I'm sure you're aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But the big question that must be answered is why the individual pages are better than the omnibus. How do you respond to that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I had no idea saying "LOL @ your comment" was considered uncivil as I've been the most civil one on here trying to debate them. Definitely noted. Anyway, to answer your question, the individual pages offered way more information for MMA fans to read. Examples include background information on fights that were announced, but eventually got changed (very important resource); buy rates for the PPVs; attendance and financial numbers for the live crowd; walk out music for fighters (in some cases); controversial pre-and-post-fight happenings (if any); television broadcasters for foreign markets; and reported fighter payouts. I see a UFC page the same way I see a film page with the behind the scenes information and credits being just as valuable. Believe it or not, I'm not opposed to an omnibus style article. In fact, I created the Bellator Fighting Championships season omnibus articles. However, when someone tried to include the aforementioned information, TreyGeek removed it and said it made the article "too long." In fact, people had to twist his arm to even offer results as he was perfectly happy having a three paragraph summary of only an event's biggest highlights. Udar55 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was heinously uncivil, but it's always best to err on the side of insanely polite at Wikipedia. :)

You make good points. I gather all that additional information would be useful to visitors, right? Okay. Now, if all that were added to each section (UFC event) in the omnibus, would that make it too big? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think it would make it too big, but it would be aesthetically unpleasing. Look at the Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six page. They only hold 11 events per season and it starts to get pretty crowded in the references. The UFC holds 20+ events a year. I think this is why most folks here liked the individual UFC pages. Udar55 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the disparity, I offer these two links. The first is the original page for the first UFC on Fox show this year, a major show. The second is TreyGeek's revision:

Notice how he removes all of the background information (important to MMA fans) and instead offers a summary of the results that can be read below. Even my Bellator ominbus pages offer background information. Udar55 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. So, if the entire UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis were to appear at 2012 in UFC events with nothing left out, would that be okay? Why not dump the entire contents of each separate article into the omnibus? What is the reason for content being left out?

As for references section being crowded, I don't see how that's a major problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that once the article content is in the omnibus article, it becomes a matter of content, not policy, thus the talk page is where it can get resolved instead of AFD and other forums. This is a big plus. And the tree structure of the omnibus system isn't completely worked out. Working with everyone on those will insure the right content is in the right place. The big beef with some editors arguing policy (like myself) is that there were too many small articles of questionable notability as stand alone articles. Our arguments and concerns were not about content, only policy. This makes all those problems go away, which I'm sure will make many of you very happy. ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you keep talking about these stand alone entries violating policy. I've clearly shown they do not violate policy over and over, yet you keep ignoring that. I've also given you plenty of examples stand alone articles that are far worse. I can point to a million other examples on Wikipedia of questionable notability, but you'll just avoid that too. As for AFDs, I've said it time and again that one editor (Mtking) has specifically been targeting MMA articles. Look at his history and you will clearly see that. The problem is he generalizes when it comes to MMA. I had no problem with the deletion of my Shark Fights 18 entry. But to contend that a UFC event -- something viewed by millions -- is similarly not as notable is ridiculous. The whole question of notability was started by him. When I established they are notable and in line with policy, the proof is just avoided.

And it is hilarious to see you say "our arguments and concerns were not about content, only policy." The reason all the MMA fans were up in arms in the first place is TreyGeek magically changed detailed pages into tiny paragraphs that didn't even sum up the entire card. Then he hid behind the "oh, it is just policy" excuse and has since tried to beat back anyone who didn't like his unwarranted change. Udar55 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Udar55 you are selectively looking at the notability guidelines (which are not policy) the policy relevant here is WP:NOT (or its section WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) which says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". If you look at all the notability guidelines for events (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, or WP:MMAEVENT) you will see that the common thread running through them is the requirement to show "lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.", for example UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann only has one ref from after the event and it is from the MMA media. Mt king^(edits) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who wrote the WP:MMAEVENT page? Gamezero05 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is moot. No one "owns" the page so it doesn't matter. All subsets of WP:N (such as WP:MMAEVENT) are just explanations for different areas to make GNG more understandable or applicable, however, all articles still have to pass WP:GNG as that is the authority for all the subset pages on notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you are saying is some random Wikipedia users just made up a rule one day because they felt like it, and now you use that as the standard to go by? Gamezero05 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Udar55 and I have sent several to AFD and watched them get deleted, time after time. The omnibus solution was created as a way to prevent mass deletion of the material. Perhaps you weren't a part of the previous discussions, but they took place. And please do not confuse "violate policy" with "fails to meet criteria". Those are two completely different arguments. I have argued they don't pass the criteria for inclusion at WP:GNG, others are arguing that they violate WP:NOT. Both are true enough statements, but if you are going to attack my rationale, attack the one I'm actually using, and used [1]. If you think that TreyGeek and Mtking just went maverick one day, then you haven't been paying attention to all the fuss over the last month, and you are flatly mistaken. What they did is boldly take the initiative and ask others to help. The road has been bumpy, but they have more support for their efforts than you realize. While all the meatpuppets and SPAs just came to vote, be disruptive and get blocked, others were actually quietly working on a solution. You might not LIKE the solution, but you could have been a part of it at any time if you so choose, but you weren't there at the AFDs, several ANIs, SPIs and every other venue it has been drug into, kicking and screaming. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the discussion for a long time. Longer than you actually, so I don't appreciate your implying I haven't been "paying attention." These two did not "boldly take the initiative and ask others to help." They ran just over a day of dialogue between themselves and then TreyGeek said "done" and introduced the 2012 page. What they did was take the full length, in depth pages and obliterated them. TreyGeek's initial solution? To make the detailed UFC 142 page look like this.

UFC 142

UFC 142: Aldo vs Mendes was held on January 14, 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event featured José Aldo defending his UFC Featherweight Championship against Chad Mendes. Aldo became WEC Featherweight Champion on November 18, 2009, which was later converted to a UFC Championship, and has defended his title four previous times with stoppages. Five of the last six fights, all wins, for Mendes resulted in unanimous decisions.[16] Aldo defeated Mendes by knock out in 4:59 of the first round with a knee.

The co-main event was a bout between Vitor Belfort and Anthony Johnson. The day prior, during weigh-ins, Johnson failed to make the 185 pounds (84 kg) weight limit for the match and was 11 pounds (5.0 kg) over weight.[17] Belfort agreed to fight Johnson in a catch weight bout of 197 pounds (89 kg) if Johnson did not weigh more than 205 pounds (93 kg) on fight day.[18] Belfort was able to submit Johnson with a rear-naked choke in 4:49 of the first round. Johnson was cut by the UFC following the fight.[19]

The fight of the night bonus award was given to Edson Barboza and Terry Etim which ended at 2:02 of the third round when Barboza knocked out Etim with a spinning wheel kick. That knock out also earned Barboza the knock out of the night award. The submission of the night bonus award was given to Rousimar Palhares following his submission of Mike Massenzio with a heel hook at 1:03 of the first round.[20]

Seriously, he wanted no complete results! If you can't see why that upset people, then I can't help you. Like I said earlier in this discussion, I'm not above change and personally created all the Bellator Fighting Championships omnibus articles when the individual pages got AFD. What I can't stand are two guys launching into a "it's my way or no way" stance. Anyway, have at it. You three can do whatever you want now. Udar55 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just talking with him about how much detail to go on what kinds of articles, so obviously no final decision has been made. You could just join the conversation on the omnibus article, which is the right place. You are assuming that the content won't be there when that decision hasn't been made. Until it is, something has to go there. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read those discussions you are referring to, and now you are straight-up lying. There was not all of this support you are talking about. And after TreyGeek went ahead and changed it, there were other people saying that it was ridiculous that he did that because the discussions were nowhere near complete. Gamezero05 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to parse your words more carefully. There is no justification for your incivility. The closing statements of the AFDs speak volumes and represent the consensus, I would suggest you try reading them more carefully. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility? What are you talking about? MTking also sent me a message to stop making personal attacks against people. I have not attacked anybody personally, and it's really quite ridiculous that you 3 are ganging up and threatening people who disagree with you. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "and now you are straight-up lying". You are welcome to attack my logic, you are not welcome to attack my character. Calling me a liar is attacking my character and is unacceptable behavior. If you can't understand that, then you shouldn't be editing here. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on topic please. Straying off only fuels any opposition you may receive. Threatening people will not get this issue resolved. A lot of them are new members so please try not to incite anything. Eidetic Man (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me that I can't say you are lying even if you are lying? Now, that might call for an attack on logic. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Oppose I'm really worried about the possible precedents that an omnibus page has- because clearly the UFC or MMA events are the only articles to follow the current format. To say that UFC events fail WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT implies we can simply merge similar pages into similar omnibuses, even if it is not the correct way to go about things. Unless you plan on making similar omnibuses for {{Category:2012 in motorsport}} and others, this really shouldn't happen at a current time. Teamsleep (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need for mediation

if possible, can we get a neutral party informal mediation or something for this issue? Teamsleep (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 696: / Line 696: @@
 '''Comment/Oppose''' I'm really worried about the possible precedents that an omnibus page has- because clearly the UFC or MMA events are the only articles to follow the current format. To say that UFC events fail [[WP:EVENT]] and [[WP:SPORTSEVENT]] implies we can simply merge similar pages into similar omnibuses, even if it is not the correct way to go about things. Unless you plan on making similar omnibuses for {{tl|Category:2012 in motorsport}} and others, this really shouldn't happen at a current time. [[User:Teamsleep|Teamsleep]] ([[User talk:Teamsleep|talk]]) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
+==Need for mediation==
+if possible, can we get a neutral party informal mediation or something for this issue? [[User:Teamsleep|Teamsleep]] ([[User talk:Teamsleep|talk]]) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)