Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Complete analysis follows.

OK. Argument for deletion (distilled down) is:

1. Sources are all PR recitations, thus failing WP:N. (As a side point, an article based on these would also fail WP:V, although the nominator doesn't make this point).
2. Hasn't happened yet, so WP:CRYSTAL would preclude.
3. Coverage is routine, so WP:NEVENT applies.

Now, we go down the arguments.

1. Lukeno94 identifies two sources that he believes may qualify. Upon examination, both sources are really about Ronda Rousey, not UFC 157. No strong weight for this one either way.
2. Mdkw reaches for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and neglects to mention the other two future UFC events, neither of which have articles). No weight whatsoever.
3. Buickcenturydriver expresses an opinion, but provides no justification. No weight whatsoever.
4. LlamaAl points out this is the first female event, a fact of no interest in evaluating sourcing and policy. However, he also points out that the the "almost certain to exist" clause would preclude applying WP:CRYSTAL, but fails to consider notability as the prerequisite for that statement. This view has to be considered, weighting uncertain.
5. Moriori doesn't seem to grasp WP:CRYSTAL, so no weight.
6. Nouniquenames is pretty terse here. I'm going to have to assume he's simply supporting the WP:CRYSTAL based component of the nomination.
7. Mtking goes for the WP:NOT argument that the events typically have trouble with: lack of non-routine coverage for the UFC event.
8. Entity of the Void makes an argument with no relevance to the debate.
9. Beansy makes an argument with no relevance to the debate.
10. Kudos to Odie5553. If everyone would argue like that, these debates wouldn't become the kind of clusterfuck that this one is. He does the best job of arguing the keep side of anyone in this debate. I'll consider this on carefully. The flaw in his argument is that he presumes that USA Today represents "diverse sources", so other keep voters are going to have to fill that in by actually finding diverse sources.
11. Enric Naval basically summarizes what "routine coverage" means in this case, and he's got a solid case: since nearly every UFC article is basically an expansion of a fight card template, people need to find coverage that falls out of the fight card arena, or it's "routine coverage".
12. 182.239.235.186 whines. No weight here.
13. TreyGeek makes a new delete argument: since the articles are only fight cards, and the fight card may change, why make the article before the event. Hard to weigh, but he's got a point.
14. 174.3.198.16 finds a new source from USA Today.
15. Evenfiel makes no argument.
16. Errant confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia, so no real weight there. Affirms that he doesn't view the CRYSTAL argument as being convincing. For those that need more explicit summation, remember that arguments that read "It's the biggest shiniest vacuum cleaner ever, and it's got more attachments than any other" don't matter at AFDs. They are irrelevant.
17. SilverSeren confuses notability within the sport with notability withing Wikipedia. No weight.
18. Courier00 makes no argument relevant to the discussion.
19. JonnyBonesJones confuses notability within the sport with notability withing Wikipedia. No weight.
20. CasJer argues notability based on sources, but points at sources that are primarily about Carmouche and Rousey.
21. Sue Rangell makes no new argument.
22. Oskar Liljeblad makes a particularly bad argument.
23. Huskerdoo and Live Network Jack ignored as a part of the SPA/Sockpuppet crowd these things attract.
24. Uzma Gamal reiterates the routine coverage argument.
25. AutomaticStrikeout reiterates a bad argument.
26. JonnyBonesJones makes his second irrelevant argument.
27. 198.160.139.1 makes no argument.
28. Claritas argues that it's routine coverage.
29. Willdawg111 reiterates a bad argument.
30. Zimmie08210 whines.
31. 68.44.214.85 again confuses notability within the sport to notability within Wikipedia.
32. Luchuslu makes no argument.

So, in the end, the argument with the greatest policy based weight was that the coverage of the event is routine for this class of sports event. The efforts to refute that were flawed by two basic problems:

1. Most of the sources provided were focusing on Rousey and Carmouche, not on the umbrella UFC 157 event. I note that both fighters already have extensive article that include this material. It's been made clear multiple times that notability is not inherited, be it upwards, downwards, or sideways.
2. Treating USA Today as a completely independent source is problematic, as USA Today publishes MMAjunkie.com.

The efforts to refute WP:NOT#CRYSTAL hinged on finding UFC 157 notable in the first place, so the same problems with evaluating the notability of UFC 157 vs. the notability of Rousey and Carmouche apply.

The interrelationship between USA Today and MMAjunkie.com also weakens all arguments based on diversity of sources.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 157

UFC 157 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG. The citations speak as PR blurbs and therefore fail the "Independent of the subject" criterion. In addition, the event described in the article has yet to occur so we do not have any indication what may happen at the event, therefore WP:CRYSTAL applies in addition to WP:NTEMP as we cannot determine what enduring notability this event may have. In addition WP:NEVENT suggests "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." therefore it is appropriate by our own policies to Delete and Redirect with protection until such time that there is reasonable coverage to pass all of these objections. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

wp:deny Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Speed keep per WP:SENSE as article clearly passes WP:N and WP:V due to coverage of this notable event in multiple WP:RS independent of the promotion. This event received newspaper coverage in USA Today nearly three months before it occurs due to the historic significance of the event. It features a TITLE FIGHT and not just any title fight but THE FIRST WOMEN'S TITLE FIGHT in the world's LARGEST MMA promotion in a GLOBALLY TELEVISED event. Frankly, toy say the first ever women's championship fight in the world's largest promotion is not notable is horribly sexist and to declare such mainstream sources as USA Today is blatantly ignorant. The nominator therefore either does not know what he is talking about or is flat out lying and as such, this insulting nomination violates WP:DICK, WP:TEND,and WP:TROLL. To be blunt, anyone who would want this article deleted is a moron. That is not some opionated personal attack, but a statement of fact. The first event in the most significant league of any sport to feature a women's championship bout is unquestionably notable per common sense. Period. If someone actually tries to argue otherwise, then they know nothing about gender and sports studies. This milestone moment in women's athletic history is of great interest to not just MMA fans, but academics of feminist history. This is probably the most ridiculous and laughable afd I have ever seen in my long-time of reading this site. Enough to make me register an account just to comment here. For fuck's sake, use a little common sense! The nominator should be banned from MMA related discussions for the same reason why an infant would be banned from editing here. Pure ignorance, or pure dishonesty. --Common Sense MMA (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Indef Banned sock [1] Not a valid Speedy Keep reasoning. WP:SENSE is a subset of WP:IAR. The problem with that is that my following the rules is not harming wikipedia. The invocation of WP:IAR is harming Wikipedia. The claim of a women's championship is not sourced, and therefore can't contribute to the notability for the article. Furthermore your personal attacks are not tolerated at all. I notice that you regisered only 1 minute before you found your way here to rant and extrude your vile attacks. The closing admin will consider your posting as nothing but a WP:ILIKEIT argument, so please see your way out of this debate. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC) You need to get another hobby and stop vandalizing Wikipedia with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-arguments. Proof that Hasteur is full of it and has lazily or dishonestly violated WP:BEFORE: "Ronda Rousey meets Liz Carmouche in first UFC women's title fight" by Dan Stupp, USA TODAY Sports, says, "The first female fighters, the first female championship headliner, and the organization's first openly gay fighter have all joined the world's largest mixed martial arts promotion." As the link shows, this article has been picked up by other presses such as The Detroit Free Press. Knock off the sexist and homophobic deletionism already. Mainstream newspapers, not me, but mainstream newspapers point out that it is 1) the first female champion headliner; 2) the first openly gay fighter; 3) the first female fighter; 4) in the world's largest MMA promotion; 5) it is televised globally; 6) it already covered in mainstream press due to these gender significant aspects of a freaking title fight. Stop lying already or start walking! It took all of three seconds to look this stuff up. Do you really have such disregard for your fellow editors that you don't think they can use Google?! --Common Sense MMA (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Indef banned sock [2] Vandalism has a very specific definition here at Wikipedia. WP:BEFORE is a suggestion and not a requirement. I've asked you before to not sling personal attacks and you did it again. WP:BURDEN states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. therefore it is not my responsibility to improve the article before I make a judgement if it's reasonable to keep. You have already been reported to WP:ANI for your personal attacks and malformed reasoning. Please read WP's rules and use them correctly. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC) You know instead of whining like a crybabby at ANI, why don't you be an adult and apologize for lying? In the same amount of time it to you to create a discussion about deleting notable content, which in some warped way of non-thinking is more worthwhile to you than actual information..., you could have found the sources disproving your bogus claim that this event is not notable. Instead of taking a minute to find a source from a mainstream source that demonstrate's this event's significance as the first time EVER that an openly gay person as well as a woman will fight for a championship in the largest league or a major international sport, you start a discussion about that article that just waste's time and thin bitch and moan on some admin board. Again, your actions are reprehensible and if you were really here to build an encyclopedia, you would have instead used your time to improve an obviously worthwhile article of historical relevance concerning feminist achievements and gay rights, in addition to its significance in sports history due to a title being contested. If you want me or anyone else to talk nice to you, then you need to earn that and write honestly instead of insulting our intelligence by making false claims about stuff that anyone can verify through reliable sources in but instances. If you really wanted to set a positive example, why not be a leader and find the information that I easily found and improved the article? Or do you actually want Wikipedia to instead be the world's ultimate collection of AfDs instead of an encyclopedia? Finally, if you really do not see the significance of this event as milestone for both gay and female accomplishments in sports, that I truly feel sorry for you, because that kind of ignorance goes beyond mere trolling. --Common Sense MMA (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Indef banned sock [3]

• Trying to avoid the war above me, but here is what I've found from a quick Google search: [4] and http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ufc-157-official-first-bout-180047878--mma.html - press-release type things, very short and lacking in detail. [5], [6] I'm really not sure about. [7] is a good source but a bit lacking in content. [8] seems very tabloid-esque. [9] is a local-ish newspaper. [10] seems reasonable. I'm going to say there's enough here accumulatively for this to be worth keeping. I haven't seen very much on the gay-fighter angle though (having literally only searched UFC 157) - anyone who can give RS on that will make this a very clear pass for WP:GNG Lukeno94 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the article stay and just improve as more information is released, but if that is not reasonable then I support Hasteur's proposal of a redirect until such time there is enough media coverage to warrant a full article. Perhaps as the entire main card is announced.I remember halloween (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - UFC 1 through UFC 154 are substantial articles that meet WP:GNG. The fact that promotions for 157 are already in place would suggest that WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't necessarily apply such as 2014 Winter Olympics. Mkdw^talk 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP argument. The issue at hand is UFC 157. Not any of the events in the series. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant in that this event is not gaurnteed notability, whereas the Winter olypmics has very obivous notability. Hasteur (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong use of WP:OTHERCRAP. WP:OUTCOMES. Im not entirely sure how you thought this was an accusatory action. It was simply an outcomes question. Furthermore, WP:CRYSTAL isn't superseded by "obvious notability" but other guidelines such as events that are sure to take place and that other events have already been leading up to it in a development format. In this case it has regarding its historic announcement and the publication attention in advance. Mkdw^talk 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think all the wrestling UFC article should be merged into a single page. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - First-ever women's fight in MMA history, major PPV event. Does not fail WP:CRYSTAL, as the event is notable and almost certain to take place (my bold). --LlamaAl (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't agree with the two keepers that this isn't CRYSTAL. In fact LlamaA even says this is "almost certain to take place", meaning it mightn't. Won't hurt to not have the article and wait until after the scheduled date to find out. The sock has been zapped but it is interesting to note he/she somehow saw this article as a historical relevance for gay rights. Amazing.Moriori (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@Moriori, "almost certain to take place" is a specific requirement directly from the first part of the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. If it is "almost certain to take place" then it is satisfying a key element of WP:CRYSTAL and in fact the main WP:CRYSTAL requirement that everyone is arguing about here. Beansy (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the sources that consider it to have historical relevance for gay rights. Whether you agree or not, it's the sources' opinions that matter. Silverseren^C 23:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Crystal --Nouniquenames 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Read #1 on WP:CRYSTAL and get back to me. Because, otherwise, it seems like you don't even know the policy you're using as an argument, which is rather sad. Silverseren^C 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, there is zero indication at this time that this event will pass the WP:NOT policy, WP is not a reposatory for sports gossip or results. Mtking ^(edits) 02:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep First women's championship fight in UFC history, huge event so its very notable. Entity of the Void (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not the issue, failing WP:NOT is, so can you demonstrate that it has or will recive coverage in diverse sources afer the inital pre-event anouncments and results. Mtking ^(edits) 06:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the specific wording from WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that you linked in WP:NOT is "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." The event itself is getting coverage several months in advance already. If we take other UFC events as a "case study," (per WP:CONTINUED COVERAGE) for coverage to die down before the event actually happens several months from now, and not immediately die down instead, is pretty implausible. On top of that the even has not happened yet, so we have no way of knowing whether it will receive enduring coverage. Therefore the onus would be on you at this stage to prove why it is unlikely to receive continuing coverage if it already has coverage this far out in advance. On top of that there are dual milestones here that make enduring coverage almost a certainty, but that's actually beside the point. Beansy (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep First female fight in the UFC, which is the headlining event and for the first womens UFC Championship. There is also the first openly gay fighter in the UFC Liz Carmouche, who is also headlining this event. This also makes it the first combat sports PPV (boxing or MMA or whatever) headlined by an openly gay fighter. This one title fight alone is creating a tsunami of interest. Beansy (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, first of all, the card hasn't been announced yet so for all intents and purposes the fact that there might be a UFC women's championship is hearsay at this point. Secondly, it's possible that the individual fighter could have to withdraw in the week before the event, therefore loosing the event it's "First Openly Gay Fighter" designation. Your and Entity of the Void both depend on the "There might be a fight of XYZZY type" peg for notability. This is speculation and WP:CRYSTAL at it's finest. Hasteur (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, the promoter and part-owner Dana White announced the fight at a press conference, specified that it would be the main-event (ahead of a very big fight between two former Light Heavyweight World Champions no less), presented Ronda Rousey in person with the first UFC women's championship belt (in continuity from her Strikeforce belt), and then both he and Rousey answered questions about it. This is a primary source announcement at an event specifically to make announcements to the media. That most of the card has not been announced yet and tickets have not gone on sale yet is pretty immaterial at this point, this fight has been as announced as announced can be thank you. It has absolutely been announced, and is not hearsay or WP:CRYSTAL. Obama "might" serve as President for the next four years or he "might" be assassinated, but assuming the former is not "hearsay" or WP:CRYSTAL. Beansy (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Again can you show that this event will recive continued coverage after the inital pre-event anouncments and results becouse if not then it fails the WP:NOT policy and should be deleted. Mtking ^(edits) 06:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep USA Today appears to think this event is notable, so I believe we should have an article for it. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here because it is intended to discourage editor speculation. It even states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I am not buying the WP:NOT argument here either. The relevant policy is WP:EVENT. Much of the policy is meant to discourage people from opening up their newspaper and copying everything into articles. The policy states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This event has been widely covered in diverse sources. The next criteria down on the policy says, "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." But this event doesn't even need to jump to the may or may not be notable because it has received coverage and the scope is national demonstrated by the article in USA Today. Further, the nominator claims that this part applies: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." But it does not apply: UFC 157 is not a crime, not an accident, a death, celebrity or political news, shock news, a water cooler story, or a viral phenomena. It simply does not apply to this case. I believe I present a strong refutation of the nominator's arguments, and I believe the article should be kept as it does not violate any policy and it is notable per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

By your logic every game that Boston Red Sox, Boston Bruins, New York Giants, FC Barcelona, Manchester United F.C. and Sydney Swans play would also quilify for an article, each of there games will clearly pass the WP:GNG, USA Today will cover everyone of them (may be not the Sydney Swans), some of the games will be the first game for a given person, or the last game, however none of thoes games will have any Encyclopedic note and would fail WP:NOT the same is true of this event, the article or ref's to date fail to demonstrate why it is Encyclopedic and not news. Mtking ^(edits) 09:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Why yes, I'm pretty sure every game the New York Giants have ever been in are in articles, that is very insightful of you. Not in separate articles, but they are in seasonal articles, just as there are not articles for different UFC fights, but articles for each UFC event (which averages ~11 fights per event with different competitors and with ramifications in different divisions). Finally, considering the dual milestones reached at this event, it is just short of impossible that it would not be referenced indefinitely in periodicals for years to come, something ~99% of Wikipedia sports articles cannot claim by the way. EDIT: also, news articles about individual games pretty much never come several months in advance unless it's something like the Superbowl, which does have individual articles I'm rather sure. Beansy (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have never argued for such an absurd application of policy. Policy must be applied on a case by case basis as consensus can change; if you know of a game that is particularly noteworthy then create an article for it. As I have argued, it is encyclopedic because it meets the WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and it does not meet WP:NOT. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect into List_of_UFC_events. And redirect also all the other ~200 mini-articles in List_of_UFC_events. The only relevant datum are the date, the place, the participants and the winners. Merge the notable information if there is any. But wikipedia is not and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it doesn't have to include every event that was ever reported in a newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I mean, there is no difference between all those articles, they only change the image, date, place and lists of participants and winners. If one of them is marginally more notable due to something specific, then mention it at the list article. I mean, "the first-ever women's fight in UFC history" is not a world-shattering information, and with this meager coverage it doesn't deserve much more than a paragraph in UFC's articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

keep! - enric you may not see the notability as perhaps you have no interest in, and dont completely understand the sport? the preparation behind each card is huge and immense. its not just like two teams going at it, if there is 11 fights there is 22 "teams" that have been preparing for months for each event or card to get the fighters ready to compete. If enduring significance is in question, can the visits each of the older ufc event pages be seen somewhere? I would be interested in the amount of visits the pages get. I also feel that Mtkings comments should not be taken into consideration, i have made comments in these debates in the past and they were edited out of the AFD by him and there is other reports of the same thing happening. that is not a very productive and honest way of making a debate and to me shows that he perhaps is emotionally attached to deletion of ufc articles rather than the wp guidelines & actually making wiki a better place. 182.239.235.186 (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) regards josh

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. It doesn't need to keep extensive records of every participant in every sportive competition ever held. Indiscriminate listings of all participants and winners are not helpful. For example, Time 100 doesn't list every entry from every year, it those entries that are notable for specific reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This event is still a couple/few months away and the exact card could change significantly between now and then. Fights get cancelled all the time due to injuries and one UFC card has been scrubbed entirely in the past. There is no way to know for certain whether there will be a woman's fight, an openly gay fighter (which as a gay man, I'm not sure is really all that notable), or any other fight. My attitude has always been fights and fight cards should not be placed into articles until they actually happen because of these issues. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep First EVER Woman's fight in the history of the company, along with a major LHW Championship contender fight. Seems this AFD is being run by someone with no understanding of the sport, its history or the significance of this card. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mma/2012/12/06/ronda-rousey-meets-liz-carmouche-in-first-ufc-womens-title-fight/1752021/ <----- USA Today article about the milestone main event, http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ronda-rousey-vs-liz-carmouche-160353054--mma.html <---- Yahoo sports (an entity not exactly friendly to the UFC) giving coverage to this fight. Quick google search found me those articles. This event is already receiving coverage for it's main event feature of both the first UFC woman's bout and the first openly gay UFC fighter. Also, cute to see you guys blocked certain sites to stop supporters from posting sources. Examiner also posted an articled referring to Carmouche being openly gay. Guess we know who won when you pull crap like that. 174.3.198.16 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read the arguments above that present that exact same logic and the refutations above? I guess not. Until the fight happens we can't be sure that the fight will occur. If the fight doesn't happen it reduces the potential notability of this event. Both of your claimed references are nothing more than thinly dressed up Press Releases and therefore don't demonstrate the enduring notability of the event. Finally, do not attack the motives of other editors. It's rude, a poor argument for your position, and against wikipedia policy. Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• The blacklisted sites were likely blacklisted for a reason. The Examiner is a glorified blog site with no editorial oversight that invites anyone to submit articles. Good find on the other USA Today article; the one you found is different than the one from the print edition that I used in the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Most individual sporting events are not notable; we know from past experience that certain events (e.g. individual Super Bowls) always get substantial coverage beyond contemporary news sources, but are individual mixed-martial-arts events so known? In order to fulfill our not-a-newspaper standards, we need to have more than just current news stories: books or academic journal articles, or news stories that look at this event as a past event instead of covering it simply because it's news. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - i'll address each sighted guideline and sign below. Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:GNG - This event has already recieved coverage from: CNN/Sports Illustrated, The Houston Chronicle, The Huffington Post, The India Times, MSNBC/NBC Sports, The New York Post, USA Today, news.yahoo.com, also The AP, has an article that was picked up by a number of sources including The Washington Post, and The San Francisco Chronicle Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• With numerous articles months ahead of time from over a dozen of the top newspapers in United States in addition to significant international coverage, I'm pretty sure that the four WP:GNG guidelines: "a topic has received (1)significant coverage in (2)reliable (3)(secondary) (4)sources that are independent of the subject" have been passed by miles at this point. There is literally no way that GNG can be a question here. Beansy (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CRYSTAL - "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• WP:NTEMP - I'm not sure this is relivant. Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:NEVENT - The Inclusion criteria point to WP:GNG, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. " Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In which case you need to demonstrate that they have either "enduring historical significance" or "a significant lasting effect as nothing provided to date does. Mtking ^(edits) 04:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAP - WP:CRYSTAL specificly asks is the subject matter would merrit an article if it had already happened. Compairing UFC 157 to any other UFC event is a direct comparison, to answer the question asked by WP:CRYSTAL. Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You missed the curial one, the Policy WP:NOT, there is no attempt here or at the article to demonstrate the enduring notability of the event, you can assert all you like but you need to show with sources that is is going to have enduring notability. News reports don't demonstrate that. Mtking ^(edits) 04:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are again misstating the words of WP:NOT regarding WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Again: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." As this is an event this far out already receiving a fair amount of mainstream coverage, and with the dual milestones set to happen, it is reasonable to assume that coverage will endure beyond the event itself. However, that is very much a moot point as it is the onus of those calling for deletion to make a compelling argument that there will be not likely be enduring coverage in the future, otherwise your argument could be made for anything that is not a past event, in any subject. Beansy (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not misstating anything, WP:NOT is clear when it says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." the coverage so far for this event is just such routine reporting of the announcement and reporting of event speculation, as such the coverage is not sufficient for the event to be included in the encyclopedia, in actual fact the burden is on those claiming it meets the inclusion policy to demonstrate it does so you need to demonstrate with the use of sourcing that it has or will receive the appropriate non-news coverage. Mtking ^(edits) 05:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There have already been a number of articles about the event that are specifically about the significance of the event and not routine reporting. That transcends even the harshest possible interpretation of WP:NOT. Beansy (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the links provided above (before you edited your post) so lets look at them :

• CNN/Sports Illustrated a three sentence article about Ronda Rousey mentioning her appearance at this event. It is a AP wire report, and does not cover the event in any detail, nothing on how the the will be significant.
• The Houston Chronicle One small mention about Alexander Gustafsson fighting Lyoto Machida at the event taken from a blog which "is not edited by the Chronicle".
• The Huffington Post Article about Liz Carmouche no mention of this event.
• The India Times is a link to a bloodyelbow.com page.
• MSNBC/NBC Sports copy of same AP wire report posted by CNN above, a three sentence article with nothing on how the event will be significant.
• The New York Post Also a blog post reporting on the announcement of the event.
• USA Today Two mentions of the event, nothing on how the event will be significant.
• news.yahoo.com Same AP wire report that NBC and CNN published.
• The AP is the AP report covering the news conference, just routine WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage.

so lets not kid ourselves into thinking there is anything other than routine news reports on this event. Mtking ^(edits) 07:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct on the Huffington Post article Mtking, i should not have linked to that article. As for the rest, my point was only that nonWP:WG news sources are covering the event. Sorry for the bad link. Kevlar (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of Kevlar's citations left something to be desired after taking a closer look, I'll give you that. It's okay though, I found some better ones. It's not like there's a lack of them.

• Orange County Register: Rousey to make history in MMA (full article, non-routine coverage, and over two months out at that)
• USA Today: UFC unsure of Ronda Rousey's PPV draw, banking it's big (ditto, and different from the article you linked above and a rather long article)
• The Atlantic: This Girl Is Not Afraid of You and Will Beat You Up (fairly short article but much more than a blurb and from a high-brow magazine that does not do routine sports coverage at all)
• Queerty.com: UFC Signs First Openly Lesbian Fighter, Liz Carmouche (short article but from a high-profile gay & lesbian-issues news site that has no routine sports coverage)
• International Business Tribune: Ronda Rousey: Women's MMA Star Set To Make Her Debut At UFC 157 (non-routine article about the debut of the UFC's women's division, specifically mentioning Rousey's mainstream media attention as a catalyst)
• Daily News (Los Angeles) (longish, non-routine article on challenger Liz Carmouche and her social media tactics to land her the title match)

This is all from about 2.5 months away from the fight, and shortly after it was announced. These are non-routine, significant news sources. Also, the the Huffington Post article you mentioned above does indeed mention the event, you may want to read that one again. There's also that AP article which is quite in-depth and hardly "routine" coverage. Let's not kid ourselves, there is plenty of non-routine coverage by any stretch of the imagination, and more of it every day. Beansy (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All sports events get this kind of routine coverage, go have a look, all those sources are primary news coverage, with no analysis of why the event will be encyclopedic. News coverage is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Mtking ^(edits) 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not required at this point, per WP:USINGPRIMARY#Secondary_sources_for_notability: "It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." There is no requirement for true secondary sources at this time per the WP:PRIMARYNEWS requirements. EDIT: And no, very few sports events get this sort of coverage and you saying that it is "routine" doesn't make it so. Beansy (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you when you say it is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events, it is exactly why this run-of-the-mill event has no place in an encyclopedia. Mtking ^(edits) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been beyond established that this is not a "run-of-the-mill" event. That there is a general dearth of secondary sources for events that just happened, let alone an event that hasn't happened yet (sadly there are usually no book references to news stories less than two weeks old). However the AP article certainly qualifies as a "secondary source" as does the International Tribune article, among others. I do think you need to let it go at this point and remember that Wikipedia is not about winning. Nothing personal but this is getting rather absurd. Beansy (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note about WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOT - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The notability of this event is not in question; WP:OUTCOMES of UFC 1 through UFC 154. UFC 157 is likely as sure to happen as 2020 Summer Olympics. I would say they share the same amount of uncertainty about whether they would go forward, and thus be within the policy. Mkdw^talk 07:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Per reasons given above. Evenfiel (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Invalidated per WP:PERNOM (and the collary regarding other reasons) Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Hasteur, but WP:PERNOM is only an essay and not policy. Furthermore, if you read PERNOM, it directly says, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". In a way, PERNOM also endorses this as a "sufficient", albeit minimum endorsement. Mkdw^talk 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • The debate over WP:CRYSTAL is completely overblown. In 221 UFC events, only one was cancelled. So far, more than 99.5% of the UFC events went ahead. The Olympic Games have a far worse record of cancelling events. We are so sure that an UFC event will happen, that when it doesn't, that's still a notable event. Besides, this is the first UFC event with women's fight. Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Given that there are a small number of upcoming UFC events at any given time (9 at the moment), would an omnibus article be appropriate for these articles? My understanding of the '2012 in UFC' omnibus was that it quickly became too large and began to appear cluttered and unmanageable. 'Upcoming UFC Events' could also include the currently deleted articles for UFC 155 and UFC 156. This could all but remove the debate over WP:CRYSTAL. If this is acceptable to those who are currently voting Delete i don't see any reason i wouldn't change my vote from keep to merge.

If there were clear criteria established that would prevent this war from continuing as an ongoing and utterly absurd cycle, I wouldn't object to upcoming UFC events having their own article and being allowed to split off into their own articles around, oh, 2 weeks ahead of the event. Heck, I'd be fine making a compromise to omnibus Fuel TV and UFC on Versus events by year as well or whatever, maybe Ultimate Fight Nights too (Strikeforce Challengers shows as well, some of which have been deleted outright including the one that was headlined by the inaugural women's Bantamweight title fight to which Rousey's title can trace its lineage, if I'm not mistaken). Considering the only offer of compromise from a heavily active editor from the other side I've seen is to omnibus all UFC articles by year, I think the two sides are still very far apart on anything like that. Beansy (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep; first ever women's fight seems to rise to the level of "notable enough to cover". WP:CRYSTAL arguments are "meh"; the fight seems likely to occur, and if it doesn't then there may still be coverage as to why. If it doesn't then is the appropriate time to reassess notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep At this point, i'm fed up with both sides here, both of which are attempting to game the rules, with one using canvassing and the other trying to use inappropriate bureaucracy. I'm of the opinion that both sides should be banned, Agent00f, Hasteur, Mtking, all of them. MMA seems to be its own little I/P topic area where everyone just needs to be blocked.

But, as for this AfD, it is rather inappropriate, showing that Hasteur didn't bother to look for sources at all. That or he has an extremely incorrect opinion on our policies and guidelines. As for the coverage:

UFC unsure of Ronda Rousey's PPV draw, banking it's big - USA Today - Full article with an extreme amount of depth on the fight

First UFC women’s main event to feature openly gay fighter - NBC

Ronda Rousey UFC: Women's MMA Star Set To Make Her Debut At UFC 157 - International Business Times

MMA: Rousey ready to make history in MMA - The Orange County Register

Ronda Rousey to debut at UFC 157 against Liz Carmouche - Digital Journal

The notability for this event is evident. It's the reason for all the headlines in the first place. This is not only the first women's event in the UFC, but it is also including the first openly gay fighter to fight in the UFC (and thus the first to fight in the first women's event). Silverseren^C 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE (which is still only a suggestion). Now please rescind your call for myself and Mtking to be banned as it's inappropriate and not relevant to the discussion here. On the one side you have reasoned nominations based in policy that have been debated, consensus judged, and upheld on appeal (DRV). On the other you have editor misbehavior, canvasing, socking, deliberate disruption of attempts to broker a compromise, and gross violations of the 5 pilars. Having myself and Mtking banned from the topic area will simply give the disruptive elements what they want, the ability to POV push and game the rules of what an article can be.

Have you even considered the 9 month slog that editors in good standing have had to deal with to get even this level of reasoned debate. This even is 2 months out. UFC fights have been scrubbed a week before the event which means that all your claimed coverage could fly out the window if one or more of the fighters has to withdraw. Ergo there is an element of speculation as to if this event is going to have enough notability to stand on it's own. Hasteur (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, pertaining to WP:BEFORE: Section D.3: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Adequate sources have been proven to exist, most of which predate your nomination. You cited General Notability Guidelines as your primary concern in your AfD nomination. The article may not have undergone drastic changes like the Heyman standard (although I've added some better references), but I think it's become evident that WP:GNG does not apply.

Right now, this really doesn't feel like truly reasoned debate yet, and putting all the blame on the MMA side when for most of the duration of this this has felt like a witchhunt isn't the most diplomatic approach in my opinion, regardless of Agent00f's canvassing actions. Please, I'd love to hash something out here (beyond just this article I mean), and I think WP:MMA would be more than willing to engage in constructive discourse if you are. I'm hardly the best person to approach on that (Kevlar seems like a far better proponent for WP:MMA than myself, and I'd like to extract myself from anymore drama at the next good opportunity), but I'm just saying. Beansy (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Why do we have to go through this for every single UFC article? Agent00f, Hasteur, and Mtking's actions clearly fall within WP:WITCHHUNT. They automatically AFD every single UFC article and receive several clear, intelligent, and compelling reasons as to why the article should not be deleted. Every single discussion like this one is overwhelmingly in favor of Keep. These three users are abusing their powers and will not rest until every UFC article is removed from Wikipedia. As I have suggested before, if the goal of these people is truly to keep Wikipedia full of relevant, important information, then I strongly recommend that they remove themselves from this discussion entirely and ask another admin, one who is neutral and not on a WP:WITCHHUNT, to look at the reasons presented from both sides and make a decision that is in the best interests of both parties. Until that happens, Agent00f, Hasteur, Mtking, and others will continue to try and delete every UFC article, abuse their administrative powers, and silence the overwhelming majority that is in agreement that these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Courier00 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note about ANI - I'm fairly disgusted to learn this is the surface of a long ongoing dispute over the UFC and MMA articles. See ANI Canvassing, and 3RR Noticeboard between Mtking and Agent, and RFC dispute. There was also a bad faith declined SPI involved with Mtking. Furthermore, several edit wars across various articles such as List of current UFC fighters&action=history and more. I think it might be in the interests of the general community that further AfD's be left to the editors outside of these disputes. Mkdw^talk 08:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Silverseren^C 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Those SPI filings are a bit marginal, but I do agree that there is far too much in the way of anti-MMA crap being spouted by these editors. Not 100% sure I support a general block, but a topic block is definitely in order. Nominating an article that CLEARLY passes WP:GNG and yet citing that as a reason... very bad faith. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with most of that. I'd suggest not mentioning the Mtking SPI though, that was one of the most ridiculous things ever - I thought it was April 1st when I read that, and I think everyone else did too. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned the SPI to illustrate that the other side has also undergone severe bad faith steps and not just one side. Mkdw^talk 20:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That SPI is straight-up embarrassing, dear god. I think it's been established that all WP:MMA proponents have not engaged in perfect conduct themselves. Nevertheless the current situation is still just completely crazy right now and this ~18-month war against MMA seems pretty unique among sports on Wikipedia, with no clear motivation. The Portuguese-language Wikipedia actually is a better resource for keeping track of card formations on upcoming UFC events now. I don't really have time for much more of this, but I think the best answer is hammering out clear guidelines for MMA events at WP:SPORTS or a subpage of that, with WP:MMA's involvement and input. Beansy (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We essentially need to force Wikiproject MMA to create a set of notability guidelines for this subject and an example of the accepted kind of UFC Fight article. Silverseren^C 02:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that I'm not voting here: what you need a community wide RfC as to the interpretation of WP:GNG as it applies to MMA articles. That is the ONLY way you can create a guideline that will stick and be universally accepted. I've thought of starting one myself, and I really don't care what the outcome is (never have, really), I just want to see a result that will shed light on the subject and make the drama go away. Crafting a successful RfC, however, is no small or simple thing, as this is not a simple problem. Without a full community RfC, the community is free to ignore the consensus on some talk page, and they will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I absolutely respect your neutrality here and your attempt to broker peace, but I have to ask: which community? Wikipedia as a whole, WP:SPORTS, or WP:MMA? Would functionality, page hits, user-friendliness, and organization be considered? Is it wrong that I get the feeling that most (not all but most) of the people opposing the type of articles produced by WP:MMA up until mid-2011 are not people who actually have an interest in MMA and would not be qualified to understand the differences in significance between a UFC show and a Super Fight League show, let alone what's notable about the canceled show Affliction: Trilogy (casualty of this war)? Right now you have one side that wants to roll things back (I wouldn't welcome every C or D-League article but there has been good content lost so I'm closest to this position), and on the other hand you have a group spearheading the opposition that has opinions that seem to range from omnibussing UFC events by year and doing god knows what to second-tier league events (I don't think any serious MMA editor would consider that position remotely acceptable), up to deleting every MMA article on Wikipedia. Right now, I'd be perfectly happy to draft a list of proposed omnibus compromises on second-tier league events (most of which are defunct) and even lowest-tier UFC events, and I'd be perfectly eager to hammer that out within WP:MMA, but I haven't gotten any indication that the other side is willing to negotiate. If the folks who have nominated UFC event articles for deletion left and right want to actually extend an olive branch of some kind I'd certainly welcome it but I haven't seen any real indication of that. I think that needs to happen before an attempted RfC to broker peace occurs. I don't think an RfC has a chance of success without that. Beansy (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally know nothing about MMA, but I'm fed up, as a neutral, of the AfD wars going on - especially when things like this, which blatantly pass at least one of the nomination grounds, get nominated.Lukeno94 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• When I speak of "the community", I always mean en.wikipedia.org as a whole. In order for a decision to have a strong enough effect to be essentially a guideline or policy, it must have a consensus of everyone at Wikipedia, not just those that are interested in the subject matter. Very often, people that are interested in a subject matter are able to create a guideline that the entire community does agree with, but those participating in the MMA area have not been able to do so. This is why I think there needs to be a list of choices presented in an RfC, and 30 days of !voting and discussion to follow, and closed by an experienced person who understands the complexity of the situation and can properly gauge consensus. We can't reinvent the guidelines, we can only interpret the existing policies as they would apply to MMA events. The hard part is boiling the possible options down to no more than 3 or 4 clear options, which is a very difficult thing to do. Eventually, this will need to be done if we want to end the debates on what is and isn't AFD-worthy. This means a discussion to decide the possible options, and a neutral party to present the RfC for consideration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The first ever women's bantamweight title fight, and the 1st time an openly gay fighter fights in the UFC happens at this event. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Every UFC event isn't inherently notable, but the sources Silverseren provided certainly show that this one is, with advance coverage from multiple reliable sources. The WP:CRYSTAL argument has been pretty thoroughly debunked, and it seems clear that this easily passes WP:GNG.CaSJer (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as sources and facts demonstrate notability and consistency with what Wikipedia is. Calling UFC events unencyclopedia is absurd given that printed Encyclopedias cover this exact kind of information: [11], [12], etc. Per WP:FIVE, Wikipedia is not just a generalized encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia. If multiple printed encyclopedias cover UFC events, then there is no rationale reason why a paperless one shouldn't, especially not when it is an event with historic milestones: first woman's championship fight in the world's largest MMA promotion; first openly gay fight in the world's largest MMA promotion; covered in non-MMA specific newspapers, etc. --Live Network Jack (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• STRONG Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• It meets both of those, as I showed above, so your vote doesn't make any sense. Silverseren^C 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Let's be realistic. There's a 99% chance that this event will have notability after it has occurred, having the first UFC women's title fight and all that. What's the point in deleting it now? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that WP:ATA#CRYSTAL specifically covers this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply per many references above, which also establish notability.Hooskerdo (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's a sporting event. Of course reliable sources are going to cover it to provide enough content to meet WP:GNG. The topic still needs to meet WP:NOT#NEWS, which reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Just about all the keep positions argue that that this event will be covered in depth in the future. How would they know that if they did not believe that coverage of UFC 157 is routine news reporting? While that in depth coverage assures passage of WP:GNG, it at the same time causes the topic to fail WP:NOT#NEWS and the closer can derive a routine sports news reporting conclusion directly from the strength of the keep arguments predicting that this UFC 157 topic will receive news reporting coverage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not all the keep arguments are based on the prediction that it will be notable: mine are based on the merits of the article as it stands. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by "the merits of the article as it stands." That's not what is judge at AfD. As for your arguments, you wrote, "USA Today appears to think this event is notable" - That goes to WP:GNG, not WP:NOT. You wrote, "The relevant policy is WP:EVENT". No, WP:EVENT is a guideline, not policy, and WP:EVENT is a notability guideline, not WP:NOT. You wrote, "The relevant policy is WP:EVENT. Much of the policy is meant to discourage people from opening up their newspaper and copying everything into articles." No, that would be the Copyright violation policy, not WP:EVENT. You wrote, "This event has been widely covered in diverse sources." Yes, that goes to WP:GNG, not WP:NOT. For the keep positions to succeed in this AfD, they need to identify, per WP:NOT#NEWS, the news coverage of UFC 157 that is other than routine sports news reporting. The same is true for the other UFC articles -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 37.5, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 -- but that is for another AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually picked this from a HUffingtonPost article about Liz. I vote *Keep because the event is notable and will have lasting impact for the LBGTQ community. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word.119.225.96.189 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww

That wouldn't exactly be an appropriate action and I sincerely doubt that it would have any effect. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get itself involved in editing disputes. No, the best method to oppose MtKing and Hasteur is to voice an opposing "Keep" opinion here, with a properly articulated reason why the article should be kept that takes into account Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Silverseren^C 05:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Relist Break

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep Like Oskar said, what's the point? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• *Keep Ignore all rules fans want it and need it. UFCFan92 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Quack Quack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The 1st ever women's title fight has lasting significance. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Stop deleting UFC Events. Tickets for this event are already on sale [[13]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.139.1 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tickets being on sale is not a valid reason for notability or keeping. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence that this will pass notability, likely that it is just a routine event like all the other UFC matches and therefore should be deleted. Claritas § 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is significant evidence that this will pass notability, because it is the first women's event in the UFC and it is the first event ever to include an openly gay fighter. The notability because of this is evident from the large amount of sources that already exist and are intensely and deeply discussing the upcoming event. Thus, this event and article meet both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL because of these sources. Silverseren^C 04:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore, it is completely incorrect to state that all other UFC matches are routine, as the articles themselves refute this. Such as UFC 94, which is notable for both the fact that it is the first event to have current titleholders compete against each other and because of the greasing controversy that erupted because of the event. The non-routine nature of this UFC event is also represented by the fact that it has reached Good Article status and has extensive source coverage. Silverseren^C 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• It has received absolutely zero coverage by academic publications, which suggests non-notability. None of the sources qualify as reliable sources. Claritas § 07:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are...are you seriously saying that all non-academically published sources aren't reliable sources? I don't even know how to begin to respond to that. Silverseren^C 10:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just fell out of my chair laughing. I'd suggest Claritas reads WP:NEWSORG Luchuslu (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Why would you delete an article for an event that is coming up, just to have to start it all over again. How about we work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It's really a shame that folks continue to hurt the spirit of WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Stop interfering with fans updating the UFC event page. People rely on the UFC event page for reliable information regarding the sport of MMA. What is the point of destroying this? Otherwise, just delete the whole thing, if you're going to continue applying rules to justifying the deletion of new UFC events, why not just delete all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmy08210 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. Rest is just a comment on the contributor and not on the merits of the article. Hasteur (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is the first women UFC event ever. There is significant notability about this event. Also, how ignorant to say this is just another "routine" event. This event and article meet both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.214.85 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL is not something to be met... Hasteur (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You are incorrect. WP:CRYSTAL specifically discusses what is and is not appropriate to have an article on. This article meets what is appropriate because the event is already clearly defined and verifiable via high quality sources that discuss it in significant depth. Silverseren^C 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons listed above, expect those left by angry sockpuppets Luchuslu (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM Invalid. Hasteur (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • At this rate, let's just delete everything that is on Wikipedia because pretty much all of it could be lawyered to the point of making some kind of case that it shouldn't be here. I don't understand the witch hunt.I remember halloween (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you asserting an WP:OTHERSTUFF response? If you're saying that we're conducting a WP:WITCHHUNT here, I ask that you retract your comment as it is in the "comments about contributors and not the content" of which WP prohibits. Specifcally, saying that an attack has occured without diffs to back it up is an attack. If you look at the very begining I expressed doubt that the article passed the criteria. Nowhere did I invoke the pitchforks. Those were supplied by the townsfolk themselves. Hasteur (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Seriously, Hasteur, stop it. The wikilawyering is getting annoying. Silverseren^C 22:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Seriously, Silver seren, strike your comment on the editor and not the discussion at hand (See I can do satire). The rules are why we're at this discussion, because random drive by editors think they can load Wikipedia up with great speculation because it's their interest. I've been working on a article in my sandbox on and off for nearly a year to get it up to bullet proof article status. Not just throwing the contents of press releases in a page and slapping it up on the main space. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about hunting witches

Comment I believe WP:WITCHHUNT applies here as stated by a prior author. I already voted as an IP while I got my account info back, so I'll refrain from voting, but IMO, MTKing, Hasteur and anyone else involved in this blatant witch hunt should be removed from the discussion while an impartial mod/admin is brought in to deal with this situation. Killswitch Engage (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Agreed, this has all the hallmarks of a WP:WITCHHUNT by people have that no real interest in making things better regarding the UFC pages. These constant deletions have just made a mess of the UFC pages/sections.:Shponglefan (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.