Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller

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 redirect to 2012 in UFC events. The argument that the only sources available represent routine coverage has not been adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. This event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. (WP:EFFECT, WP:DIVERSE, WP:EVENT, etc.) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is already covered in 2012 in UFC events and there is nothing to show this meets WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE, but the content already exists at 2012 UFC event page. Astudent0 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mtking and TreyGeek are some sort of wikipedia power trip trying to ruin the collection of UFC articles and events. They created the stupid 2012 in UFC events articles and for some reason are trying to destroy the vastly preferred event structure. For those that say redirect to this pointless omnibus page citing content already existing, realize the content on the omnibus is largely incomplete and virtually unusable. You are all failing wikipedia. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd also like to point any editor monitoring/deciding on this article to look at the more thorough discussion regarding UFC articles going on here. Udar55 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect as WP:RECENTISM. Not all sports events are notable. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]
Redirect as per several of the comments above, and it would be a good idea to do this for the entire series. Keeping these is like having separate articles for every single Monday Night Football game. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. Delete better since WP has a good search engine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of cause it revived news coverage it was a professional sports event, like every NFL, MBL, NBA game, it is reported on, but none of that demonstrates it's historical significance. Mt king ^(edits) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a consensus is reached re: the omnibus. Many of the reasons this article is up for deletion can be rectified with editing. AfDs should be a last-resort and these series of AfD'd UFC articles would benefit simply from being expanded. Teamsleep (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactley none of the reasons for nomination can be fixed or I would have done so, I can't manufacture coverage of the event, it's like 99% of professional sports events, newsworthy at the time but not Encyclopaedic. Mt king ^(edits) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "...Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group...". This does. International is the wide region. And, the event has a significant impact over the following groups:

Those who follow the events
Betting agencies
Contestants
People involved in the industry itself, such as promoters
Endorsement agencies
Advertisers
Media organizations ranging from newspapers to television
Competing MMA organization
Training schools and agencies
Professional fighter groups and camps
Professional fighter management agencies

This event likely has a significant impact on all of these groups. Many likey use these event articles as valuable resources for research. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world).I emplore those making decisions on this and the myriad of other MMA pages scheduled for deletion to note that this seems to be a crusade against MMA by a very small number of people, and there is no consensus on deletion Trok333 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:MMAEVENT: Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISM
This article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct place for this type of information and detail.
I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2012

(UTC)

Strong Keep

This is an absolutely ridiculous discussion. There are wikipedia pages for individual football games, individual tv shows, all sorts of individual sporting events. What's more, if you _don't_ know about MMA, you have no right to comment on what is or is not significant. Events do not have to be Holyfield getting his ear bitten off or Ali vs Foreman. I'm guessing those are only cited examples because those are incidents everyone knows about. An encyclopedia is to document important events that are _not_ common knowledge. It's simply asinine to suggest a sporting event seen by millions and in dozens of countries and put on by the world's largest fight promotion is too insignificant to be listed. What's more, it should be someone who is actually knowledgeable about the subject making these claims. Beansy (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

216.55.51.54 (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppet of user Newmanoconnor. Udar55 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really grasping at straws there Udar55 huh??Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep arguments are terribly unconvincing, and the nominator's are strong. 86.** IP (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Teamsleep (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.