Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is considered a top-tier organization?[edit]

I hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but may I ask what makes an MMA organization top-tier? Anytime you hear someone talking about MMA, it's either UFC, Bellator MMA, or WSOF. Why is it that WSOF is not considered top-tier? I don't see any reason why it is not. If it's the number of events (over 20), WSOF dwarfs Invicta (less than 16). The level of talent is right up there with Bellator MMA. Many former fighters from the UFC and Bellator MMA compete in WSOF today. A WSOF fighter, Nick Newell, has an article not because he's had several fights including a title shot, but because he's had articles written about him because of his disability. Totally ridiculous in my opinion. WSOF along with UFC and Bellator MMA are the organizations that are televised on major TV channels. Ex. Spike TV (Bellator), Fox Sports 1 (UFC), and NBCSN (WSOF). I strongly believe that there needs to be some reconsideration as to whether or not WSOF should be considered a top-tier organization. If not, please explain to me why. Thanks. WWE Batman131 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The last time this was discussed was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 9. I think the explanations and issues are well outlined. It is based on current fighter rankings (not on the way up or down) and not on number of events. I think WSOF was close a number of times, might have even been there for short periods but not consistently.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Rankings show that at least 3 fighters from the WSOF are in the top 10. Ex. Jake Shields, David Branch, and Marlon Moraes. Two of them are champions and one of them is the Welterweight number 1 contender. What is currently restricting the WSOF from becoming an organization that has top-tier status? WWE Batman131 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at the Sherdog rankings for April 19th and I see both Shields and Moraes at 8 and Branch not in the top 10 (Middleweight contender). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any hold-up will have to do with a transient nature and a date from when will have to be decided. The last time this went around is one of the fighters was at 10th place and expected to drop which they did. UFC and Bellator have consistently had at least 3 top 10 fighters - WSOF has been close a few time but that's it. I think WSOF is the best second tier organization out there but that's only my opinion and if they did have the numbers (consistently) I would have no issues with promotion.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The prerequisites have been met. Jake Shields, Rousimar Palhares, and Marlon Moraes are in the rankings. WWE Batman131 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PRehse has it right--having the numbers consistently. I think the condition can't just be met for a fleeting moment. One problem I see with the WSOF is that both Shields and Palhares are barely in the top 10 and are scheduled to fight each other in their next bout, meaning that one is likely to drop out of the top 10. Notability is not temporary--we don't move organizations in and out of the top tier based on short term results. A truly top tier organization should stay that way for awhile. Papaursa (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How long is awhile? WWE Batman131 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say one year. If they can keep at least 3 fighters in the top 10 for a full year, I'd say they belong in the top tier. That means they can't drop down to 2 ranked fighters and go back up to 3. They must maintain a minimum of 3 continuously for a year. That's my opinion. I do think they're currently the best of the second tier organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Listen, all male fighters in Sherdog's rankings are from either UFC, Bellator, or WSOF. There are no ranked fighters from any other organization in any Sherdog top 10. Why is that not enough? WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Because we have an objective criteria that was arrived at through consensus and has been used for years. I think changing them requires more than "I don't like it" or "I think organization X should be top tier". If an organization can't show it's top tier for just one year, it probably isn't. Notability is not temporary.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think the point about objective criteria reached by consensus over a period of time is key. However WWE Batman131 has raised a good question. I don't think a period of time has ever been discussed and to be clear if a period was decided on and it was accomplished than the date for being Tier 1 could be backdated. My personal feeling is that 1 year with 3 or more top tier fighters is more than enough and I could accept 6 months. If we take the number of weight devisions multiplied by 10 than the number of fighters contributing to the Top Tier discussion is quite large. In fact I think 3 is a very generous number and if this would be argued again I would be going for double that - but of course I will stay with 3.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe 6 months is fair. Can we establish a consensus @Peter Rehse? WWE Batman131 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to clarify a couple of things that were mentioned in the above posts. First, the idea that a promotion needs to qualify and remain top tier for a length of time has been discussed, and generally agreed to, but no specific time length was ever set. I think a year seems reasonable. Second, besides being discussed on MMA pages, several administrators have been asked previously about notability being retroactive and everyone seemingly has agreed that fights before an organization officially becomes "top tier" do not count towards fighter notability--which makes sense and seems reasonable to me. Third, I agree that 3 is a ridiculously low number of ranked fighters. That number was set at a time when there were more MMA organizations roughly on the same level and slightly fewer weight divisions. It was an attempt to have an objective standard and yet still be inclusive. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal I would like to propose that for an MMA organization to be considered top tier, it must have at least 3 fighters ranked in the top 10 for one continuous year. If there's a time during that year when it doesn't have 3 top 10 fighters, the clock is automatically reset to zero. Note that this doesn't change the requirement for the number of ranked fighters, it merely sets a minimum time length to qualify. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to slightly modify this proposal for the WSOF. In order to simplify things, I would say the WSOF can be considered top tier if it continuously has three top ten fighters for the rest of 2015. That would allow us to add the WSOF to the top tier starting at the beginning of 2016. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the modified proposal. Sounds very fair in respect to WSOF and the time of year. Let's establish a consensus and get this going. WWE Batman131 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that makes 8 months consistently with 3 of 10. OK I am on board but with the understanding if it drops below we return to 0.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I vote in favor of the proposal and the one time exception for the WSOF. I also agree with Peter's understanding of the proposal. I'd like to discuss raising the 3 fighter minimum in the future.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems like we have agreement. If the WSOF drops below 3 top 10 fighters in 2015, the clock resets to zero and they will have to meet the one year condition described in the proposal. Due to changes in the MMA environment since these guidelines were first created, I am willing to discuss raising the 3 fighter minimum. Given the increase in size of the UFC, I would also be willing to consider increasing the 3 top tier fight minimum for fighter notability (or perhaps a 2 win minimum might make more sense). Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone considered expanding this notability requirement to top 15/20? Rankings are very subjective and using Sherdog, while they're the best source of MMA records, gives you a bit of a western bias in the end. This is a big problem with MMA:NOT in general. As opposed to 3 fighters in the top ten, why not allow for 5 of the top 20? Fight Matrix should also be considered. FM is database driven and not based on human selection criteria meaning there's less bias to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps because top 10 is a fairly common sports criteria. For example, it's used for both the boxing and kickboxing notability criteria. It seems a reasonable place to draw the line to say who the top fighters are. Beating the 20th best doesn't have the same cachet. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


It's become clear that WP:MMABIO and WP:NMMA are just different enough that a small number of people could be consitered notable under WP:MMABIO but not under WP:NMMA. WP:MMABIO reads "Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations" and WP:NMMA reads "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC". I dug around and I believe that this will only affect 9 potential articles (listed below) for people who's amature fights were with ShoMMA: Strikeforce Challengers. My understanding is that there was a discussion about the amature/exhibition fights in The Ultimate Fighter also not counting toward notability. I don't personally have a preference, but i would like to see the two guidelines either merged or modified so they are the same or at least more similar.

The word professional should be inserted into WP:MMABIO since WP:NMMA is a higher level. I believe the lack in the former was an oversight. Unless there are screams of outrage I will insert it in a few days.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. In the above list it only affects Ron-Humphrey who has an article as Abongo Humphrey.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Although this comment comes a tad late, I think correcting MMABIO to match NMMA was the right thing to do. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)