Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination)

UFC 149

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}}.

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

This event, not due for another three months clearly fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT notability guidelines, the coverage that this "event" received is totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part) the article does not attempt to demonstrate what this event's lasting effect is going to be and nor can it.

Countless notable organisations hold countless events every week that are not worthy of encyclopaedic note, this one is no different. Mt king^(edits) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king^(edits) 00:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that this card has had a press release in Calgary I think it's fair to say that it is a notable event. I've added the National Post, Vancouver Sun, Toronto Sun and ESPN as sources. I believe that the fact that it is a major UFC card (PPV) as well as the fact that the featherweight champion is fighting makes it the most notable type of mixed martial event show there can be. --Pat (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a press release does not make it fair to say that it is a notable event, have a read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the policy on such is very clear. Mt king^(edits) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge 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. Having to pay to watch it via Pay Per View does not make it a notable topic. The National Post, Vancouver Sun, Toronto Sun, and ESPN reporting on its existance does not make it a notable topic, after all, they report on each week in NFL football (for example) and on each professional baseball, and NHL game as well. My opinion is these articles would be better suited for an omnibus article split by year, which lists who fought, who won, where it was hosted. Those events that are perticularly notable or unique (i.e. lasting effect, and that sort of thing as covered in WP:MMAEVENT). Overall most coverage of UFC events is quite routine.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 in UFC events as proposed in my sandbox and at the MMA WikiProject. The article currently contains only WP:ROUTINE fight and event announcements of a WP:SPORTSEVENT and lacks well sourced prose. The event is four months away and there have been very few fights announced for it, therefore it is WP:CRYSTAL to say if this event will be truly notable and have lasting effects. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They're annoucing fights for this UFC event right now. There is no reason to delete this... Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the policy and guidelines that if fails ? Mt king^(edits) 05:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of previously kept content. An Afd from but days ago closed with discussion to merge and to discuss that merge on the article's talk page. There was no consensus to delete this content and so the nominator after whining to everyone he could is now just trying to force his way through by trying again to delete previously kept content. In the week since the previous discussion closed, a plethora of new sources has turned up,which is why various editors are no for keeping instead of merging/redirecting. I don't know if the nominator was beat up as a kid and now just has it out for actual tough guys, but my God are his nominations increasingly absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Striking comments made by a blocked troll. Mt king^(edits) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Event has been covered by multiple international sports journalist organizations, ESPN, SI, FOX etc. event itself is not WP:CRYSTAL as it has been announced and is being promoted by the UFC. Much like upcoming events like 2012 Vuelta a España, 2012 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, 2012 European Women's Handball Championship, 2012 IIHF World Championship, etc. Ppt1973 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant flaw in your analogy (apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). You are referring to annual competitions, UFC 149 is not in the same ballpark (pardon the pun) as those. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Any UFC event that has happened, or will happen, that has been announced should not be deleted. Period. JadeSnake (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 UFC events There is no basis in any policy to support the claim that any UFC is/will be automatically notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though it might conflict with some regulations from Wikipedia, I think traffic should decide the fate. If the articles on the UFC events see enough traffic, I don't see why not just leave them as is. However, I think the best solution overall would be to create a Wikia website JUST for UFC events, so each page could be preserved there. Then the UFC events could be merged together on wikipedia, and not as many people would be upset. However, unless that happens I still think there is enough traffic to warrant leaving the articles as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autokid15 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Autokid15 (talk • contribs) has only made 2 other edits in the last four years and only twelve others in total. Mt king^(edits) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Encyclopedias are not popularity contests. Mdtemp (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as above. I find the nom's arguments persuasive, and the Keep arguments unpersuasive. Press releases and TV ads explicitly ≠ notable coverage. "Traffic" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) ≠ notable coverage. Truth be told, the most telling factor in the bankruptcy of these Keep arguments for MMA events is how few of them even attempt to cite valid Wikipedia policy grounds to buttress them. Ravenswing 10:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the redirect option is accepted by the closing admin, I'd suggest targeting the redirect at the UFC 149 subsection: 2012 in UFC events#UFC 149. I think it might result in people being less likely to remove the redirect since they'll immediately see the information on UFC 149. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as I suggested in my close of afd1. The same reason holds A list of UFC events is appropriate, for this and all future events (I didn't see a suitable one at the time, but suggested doing it by year.) Our present rules do not permit separate articles for most individual sports events.. There might be a case for expanding our coverage of sports events--I think someone suggested that covering each match in the major sports would take maybe 50,000 articles a year, which we could handle if we wanted to, but this would really need a new proposal and an rfc. I am certainly not going to propose it, because I am quite sure there would not be consensus for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 in UFC events then redirect - This was already decided just a couple week ago in the last AFD, essentially. Nothing has changed, except the article to merge TO finally exists. Having those 50,000 marginally notable articles doesn't make Wikipedia better, it just makes it a box of trivia, weakly linked. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to bankrupt delete votes being unconvincing. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked sock. - see here[reply]

Comment: Funny, I don't see a single Delete vote here; the consensus among experienced editors is running heavily to merge-and-redirect. Would you like to try again? Ravenswing 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much easier on the eyes too having them on separate pages. I could accept a merge though until the event is held. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.227.216 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expected to have the UFC's Featherweight championship defended^[1], and it's the first UFC event in Alberta. It's a major event, clearly notable and covered my major news outlets. Teamsleep (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/7719029/jose-aldo-defend-title-ufc-card-calgary

[1] ttp://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/7719029/jose-aldo-defend-title-ufc-card-calgary

[1]