Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arena (MMA)

The Arena (MMA)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. ~~Recreation of a CSD? (I'll have to check on that one)~~ An unreferenced article written in the style of a promotional advertisement. Does not hold any WP:RS, completely unverifiable by third-party sources. notability not established. I am also suspicious of a possible WP:COI on the part of the article's main contributor, User:Mmasource. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I found a lot of business-listings and myspace/facebook/twitter-stuff, but no independent mentions in major newspapers or other WP:RS. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No sources to establish notability that I can find. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable business; only argument ever made for its retention was the ol' WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to indicate that this place is notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. I appreciate the article creator's attitude about trying to learn and respect the ways of Wikipedia, and I recognize the frustration of having created an article on something that is (to them) so obviously noteable. However, the comment on Benlisquare's talk page says it all: "The team is young and most newspapers do not cover much of MMA." Mmasource, you may well be right that MMA is the next coming thing, and five years from now, "The Arena" may well be a household name on par with the X Games or the Ultimate Fighting Championship. But— and here is the salient point— that has not happened yet, and that is why this article is premature. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and doesn't include articles on things that may become notable soon, once the newspapers overcome their institutional bias and start giving them the coverage they deserve. Wikipedia is a place for things that have broken through already and gotten such coverage. As a tertiary source encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot be on the leading edge; it is and must be on the trailing edge.

I appreciate the work you've done in digging up third-party sources that mention The Arena, but there are two problems:

(less important) The sources you've mentioned are all very closely connected to to MMA, and as such could easily be construed as primary sources. One of the early lessons I learned about sourcing on Wikipedia is that secondary sources (like newspapers) are insisted upon, because they are used as the referee. They answer the question, "What is important to enough people that it merits inclusion?" A site dedicated to MMA may prove your facts are true, but it cannot convey notability outside a very narrow audience, and that is where such a source falls short for your purposes here.
(more important) Even among the sources you cited, the articles only mention The Arena. Not one of them is about The Arena. If you were trying to prove that The Arena exists, they might do the trick, but you're not: you're trying to prove that it's notable to merit an entire encyclopedia article dedicated to it.

Until someone, in a good secondary source, writes an article about The Arena that mentions the athletes in passing, you don't have notability for The Arena itself. Unfortunately at present, all the sources you can find, adequate or not, have got it the other way around.

Best luck to you, —Rnickel (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Mmasource* I appreciate the comments made here that have explained some of the ethos behind WP. I was obviously not aware of how detailed with 3rd party verifications I needed to be. I also appreciate Rnickel's comments specifically, as they have provided the most explanation to date. However, I would like to point out several things in regards to those comments, as well as those made by other editors above.

MMA is widely accepted as the fastest growing sport in the world. It has provided 7 out of 10 of the highest grossing PPV gates for any televised event in the world for the past 4 years running (the other events each year have been 2 boxing matches and 1 WWE match respectively). Consequently, I would argue that the notability of the sport, its promotions, and teams is not something to be concerned with 5 years from now. This is what is happening in popular culture today. Additionally, an example was made for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.And it is just one promotion (albeit it the most famous for now) among many in MMA. Yet look what sort of influence just this one promotion alone already holds in mainstream society.
Given that fact, no MMA team will ever match the fame of a promotion like the UFC. It is impossible, just like no individual football team will ever match the fame of the NFL itself. A sports team is not supposed to be bigger than the sport, particularly when it deals with athletes who compete in one-on-one sports like MMA and Boxing. Yet, a team can still be notable in terms of the athletes it trains to compete in such events. And the Arena is already such a team AT THIS MOMENT, not a team to be considered in the future. This is proven by the verifiability (clearly referenced on The Arena's Article page) of the world-class athletes currently training there, including the current and most dominant champion in the history of Women's MMA (in itself an extremely notable occurence). In fact, MMA teams, since they aren't franchised like typical sports teams, are extremely reliant on the notoriety on the athletes who train there. So the point of an article about a team that focuses on training individual athletes is not supposed to be (and rarely is) about the team itself, but more so about the importance of the athletes who train there and why.
I understand your point about specific sites concerning MMA alone versus more generic newspapers. However, these sites actually provide information to a far greater audience than you might imagine. In fact, the numbers of visitors to sites like sherdog.com are far greater than the visitors to a typical metropolitan newspapers, let alone just the sports section where topics like MMA would usually be covered. For example, Alexa.com (the default popularity ranking site for other websites) currently rates Sherdog.com as the 894th most popular site in the U.S. In comparison, The San Diego Union Tribune (the main paper for San Diego, the 7th largest city in the U.S.) has it main website for the entire paper, Signonsandiego.com, with an Alexa.com U.S. rank of 970 (higher means less popular). So does an MMA site such as Sherdog.com truly have that narrow of an audience? Or is its specific, yet highly knowledgable user base large enough to allow the site recognized authority as a legitimate source, particularly in regards to a subject matter like MMA that requires a certain level of knowledge of the sport to be considered an educated fan? In essence, would you rather gather your knowledge of current economic issues from The Economist or your local newspaper, even though the newspaper is considered a secondary source? Which one would you consider a more reputable source to serve as a "referee" given such a broad based subject, particularly since newspapers are almost entirely dependent on advertising revenue and as such are often influenced by advertisers agendas?
But even more important than any of the preceding points, if you are going to have an entire category of Articles about various mixed martial arts training facilities like Wikipedia does, shouldn't the same standards be applied to those Articles and the teams described therein as you are proposing be applied to The Arena (MMA) Article? I encourage everyone relevant to this discussion to visit those various Articles on the teams just as I have done. In fact, I modeled The Arena's Article primarily from the other teams Articles. And most provide far less 3rd party references than I have done for The Arena, with the vast majority of those references coming from the same MMA specific sources that I am now being told are not good enogh for the purposes of 3rd party verification.
Additionally, most of the references to the gyms/teams are made in much the same vein as The Arena itself is mentioned, with little specificity about the actual teams themselves beyond the athletes training there. So, is it being suggested that by deleting The Arena's article page then all the other team's Article pages should be deleted as well? Would that really serve the best interests of the users of Wikipedia, particularly given the sheer number of those users searching for information related to information about the numerous teams in MMA, as opposed to those users searching for information contained in some of the far more obscure articles that populate WP?
Finally, although most of the teams listed in WP's Mixed Martial Arts training facilities do not have articles specifically referencing the teams, I do know of articles that do discuss The Arena specifically and I will provide links to them shortly. Hopefully, given this, I will have provided an abundance of verification for The Arena, especially compared to the other team pages that should be held up to the same standards.

In conclusion, I simply ask that the same standards that are applied to the other Articles for the other MMA teams contained in WP be applied to The Arena's page. Anything else would not seem fair nor in the spirit of WP. Thank you. Mmasource (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]