Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 20 July 2012

UFC 8

UFC 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede of the article mentions nothing about a league or a top league, and the only place the word "championship" appears is in the name of the company that is being promoted.  What is this top league that is having a championship?  Here is what WP:SPORTSEVENT says,

* The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final

Note that all of those examples are teams, not individuals.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Fairly certain all the other AfD's you opened were closed, at least a majority of them, with "No Consensus" being the result. This one may have been overlooked but I see it being the same, these AfD's need to wait until the policies and guidelines are clarified before anything can be decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THEDeadlySins (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Contributions should comment on contributions, not contributors, as this helps to preserve Misplaced Pages as a group of colleagues in a common endeavor of building an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note to closer- This AfD was not listed in the deletion log, I have added it now. Monty₈₄₅ 05:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable top event in it's sport, just because you don't watch or like this particular sport doesn't mean it should be deleted, this is like me AFDing the superbowl because I don't like American Football, ridiculous nom Seasider91 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that a topic is notable without evidence is called a proof by assertion.  What evidence is there that it is notable?  Contributions should comment on contributions, not contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you live under a rock? The UFC is one of the largest combat sporting organizations in the world. Its events have generated over one million pay per view buys at certain events. This is like demanding evidence that the NFL or NBA is notable. This deletion premise is ridiculous and a waste of our time. 97.100.97.195 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - notable, widely reported-on event. Zujua (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes have a problem in that they do not explain the conclusion based on Misplaced Pages policies, so do not contribute to the building of consensus.  Claiming that an event is "widely" reported on and not providing sources is a proof by assertion that is not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to UFC  As per WP:What Misplaced Pages is NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper "...routine news reporting on things like...sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  WP:SPORTSEVENT adds "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats."  The only citation currently in the article is that there were "160,000 buys" from a source that asks, "Please take some time and sign our guestbook!"; which is not "well-sourced prose".  Given the absence of reliable citations, WP:V by itself is sufficient reason to delete this article, although primary sources can be reliable so this is not by itself a complete argument for deletion.  At the same time, when sourcing the article means starting from zero sources, it means nothing is lost to editors in the deletion of this article under WP:V.  The claim that there was a protest associated with this event, which as per WP:NRVE seems likely to be sourceable, does not mean that readers would also be interested in the UFC 8 sports event itself, which is another way of saying notability is not inherited.  I concur with the nominator that there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability or significance.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.97.195 (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, which has been used as justification to keep other UFC articles and would seem to be as valid here. Also, there's at least one WP:RS talking about the show after the fact, on Yahoo, which does also go into the significance of the event. CaSJer (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "...administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or being made using a new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that I'm a sock puppet, which I'm not. Are you planning to provide evidence? If not, please strike. If the closing admin wants to consider me to be an SPA, that's fine, I can't argue that I'm not a new user, obviously.CaSJer (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Relisted AfD debates