UFC 155 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The deletion of this article is a travesty, the votes were 3 to 1 in favor of keeping it. So what if it breaks one silly rule, I should not have to remind you of your other rule called 'Ignore all rules' which says 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'

This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes.

This silly censorship of UFC events needs to stop. UFCFan92 ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the original closing decision. The nom has not shown why they are contesting the deletion as per WP:DRVPURPOSE other than they didn't like the decision. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes I have, it may not be in wiki-speak, but point 1 says 'if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly', with 13 votes to keep and only 4 to delete in anyone’s book that is interpreting the result incorrectly. UFCFan92 ( talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Per above. I see nothing wrong with the discounting of the canvassed, non-policy based opinions. Them From Space 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

see above UFCFan92 ( talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes", says it all really - Wikipedia is not a sports news service. Claiming that the deletion of articles about non-notable subjects is "censorship" is childish at best, grossly misinformed at least. Ignoring sock-spam and taking into account only those keep and delete opinions that actually cited policy is entirely reasonable. I can see some keep votes that made perfectly valid arguments so doing so was certainly possible. Their arguments just weren't as strong as the others. The sock puppetry was the only "travesty" involved. Stalwart 111 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - I reject the arguments presented by UFCFan92 as being pretty silly, but I absolutely must vote to overturn the deletion of the article UFC 155 (I vote to keep UFC 156 as a major sporting event worthy of encyclopedic preservation as well but I am arguing specifically for UFC 155 here). I am perhaps a bit biased, but as someone who went to great lengths to make an improved version of UFC 155 after it was deleted (check my sandbox), I can say I ended up with a total of 23 good sources including half-a-dozen articles from mainstream newspapers such as USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, The Las Vegas Sun, and the Daily Telegraph (London). The rest weren't just MMA-specific sites either, there were a number of sources from mainstream sporting web sites including ESPN.com, Yahoo Sports, and Globo Esportes (Portuguese language) to help illustrate the importance of the card. It's one of the most major combat sports events of the year and not a routine MMA event. I would reject the notion that it is comparable to a single game as there are 11 different fights on the card, in a promotion that has managed to cull together 80-85% of the elite MMA talent in the entire sport, with separate ramifications in six different weight divisions. The card includes a World Heavyweight Championship fight (and unlike in boxing there is only one of those in MMA that is taken as legitimate), only the second in the past year (which is about average frequency), which is also a rematch of the first UFC match shown live on an American broadcast network, wherein the current challenger Cain Velasquez was dethroned. It is also a match that was made as a result of a major and notable steroid scandal that has rocked the entire sport when #1 contender and linear champion for a number of other historically important organizations Alistair Overeem was suspended for unnaturally elevated Testosterone-to-Epitestosterone levels, which is mentioned in detail in the reworked article. Furthermore, as is normally the case with the larger UFC events, the undercard is not fluff, and there are arguably five other matches where the winner could end up a fringe title contender in their respective divisions. Finally if the event is somehow cancelled, it will only be the second UFC event where that has ever happened out of over 200 and that in itself would be notable. As it were, I've gone to great lengths to illustrate UFC 155's worth as encyclopedic content and would ask you to consider the above. Beansy ( talk) 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

There are at least 8 Heavyweight MMA champions listed here, The UFC has had over 14 scheduled "championship" fights this year. You also support the proposed draft MMA article guidelines that if in place now would see "Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles" and "split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria for stand alone event articles" Mt king ^(edits) 08:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Any promotion can tack on "world" to the front of their title. Literally no one in the sport considers anything but the UFC Heavyweight Championship to be the consensus champion. But don't take my word for it. Find me a recent ranking from any news website (MMA, general sports, whatever) that considers anyone other than Junior dos Santos to be the #1 Heavyweight in the world. Any ranking in the past year. For that matter, I'm not aware of any rankings that list any non-Zuffa fighters even in the Top 10 Heavyweights. There was a time when only their Welterweight Champion was considered the best in fact. That time has long since passed. There might be a very few journalists who rank Pat Curran as the best Featherweight, above Jose Aldo, but that's about it across all 8 weight divisions. There's a reason the UFC was investigated by the FTC for potential anti-trust violations: they fall just short of being both an industry monopoly, and, for elite fighters, an employment monopsony. Beansy ( talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As for my support of the proposed guidelines, this is a cut & paste from below: As a compromise position I would support it (I believe even in that I argued for splitting off numbered articles between five days and two weeks ahead of time when all other standards were met, and for earlier split off when the notability was overwhelming ala UFC 157), but until an RfC is conducted that crystallizes policy I will continue to support the creation of new articles for major UFC events. I'm not exactly arguing for a separate article for the next King of the Cage event here. Beansy ( talk) 09:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - The reasons presented for the initial request for deletion review aren't objective, but Beansy makes a good case for why the article would be notable. Furthermore, it still seems clear that attempts to delete UFC articles are based on overly strict interpretations of WP:NOT directed solely at UFC events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The event fails WP:NOT specificity the section that says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Mt king ^(edits) 08:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Your logic could apply to any upcoming sporting event on Wikipedia (assuming you meant to liken an upcoming sports event to a product announcement). Why have you not nominated Super Bowl XLVII for deletion if this is the case? Far less is known about that event right now. Not to mention the 2013_NFL_playoffs. Too big? Okay, how about ATP/WTA Tennis. Maybe the 2013 Australian Open? Beansy ( talk) 08:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I would probably counsel against WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - the Australian Open is a particularly unhelpful example - it's a Grand Slam event and is run in January (less than a month away) and I think precursor events have already started (Brisbane/Sydney internationals) or are at least about to start. Anyway, unlike MMA, Tennis and other sports have specific guidelines here. If MMA (and WPMMA in particular) want to be taken seriously here, the members/enthusiasts need to get together and work on some proper guidelines. And without prejudging those discussions, "all UFC events are presumed notable", probably won't be taken seriously. Until you put that effort in, these AFDs are going to keep happening and you'll keep having furious 50k+ byte arguments over every single one. So instead of having the same arguments over and over again, go and put something up at WP:VPP or start an RFC (as I think was suggested during one of these AFDs) and you'll not have to worry about it again. Stalwart 111 11:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The closer correctly accepted the WP:NOT argument. As for "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes" - nonsense. Why does this sport have to use an encyclopedia as an event news and results service? What's wrong with sites like:

• mmafighting.com - MMA News & results for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Strikeforce & more
• mixedmartialarts.com - MMA news, fighter profiles and events
• sherdog.com - MMA news, interviews, pictures, videos and more since 1997
• mixedmartialarts.wikia.com - "Welcome to the Mixed Martial Arts Wiki"

JohnCD ( talk) 11:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

UFC 156 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The deletion of this article is a travesty, the votes were also 3 to 1 in favor of keeping it. So what if it breaks one silly rule, I should not have to remind you of your other rule called 'Ignore all rules' which says 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'

This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes.

This silly censorship of UFC events needs to stop. UFCFan92 ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the original closing decision. The nom has not shown why they are contesting the deletion as per WP:DRVPURPOSE other than they didn't like the decision. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes I have, it may not be in wiki-speak, but point 1 says 'if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly', with 7 votes to keep and only 2 to delete in anyone’s book that is interpreting the result incorrectly. UFCFan92 ( talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Per above. I see nothing wrong with the discounting of the canvassed, non-policy based opinions. Them From Space 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

see above UFCFan92 ( talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - As above; "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes", says it all really - Wikipedia is not a sports news service. Claiming that the deletion of articles about non-notable subjects is "censorship" is childish at best, grossly misinformed at least. Ignoring sock-spam and taking into account only those keep and delete opinions that actually cited policy is entirely reasonable. As with the other DRV above, I can see some keep votes that made perfectly valid arguments so doing so was certainly possible. Their arguments just weren't as strong as the others. The sock puppetry was the only "travesty" involved. Stalwart 111 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Just in general, not related to any specific article, I would argue that you overlook socks for the individual arguments. One must always consider only the best arguments in an AfD from either side no matter how many poor ones each side makes. Stupid arguments should not be considered a harm to those on the same side who make better ones (and this is from someone who has started plenty of stupid arguments in the past, mostly with my ex though). Beansy ( talk) 06:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure, but it all points to a need for the MMA crowd and/or WikiProject MMA to "get its house in order" and present a coherent front where these arguments extend beyond WP:ILIKEIT. As suggested above, this could all be sorted with a couple of good, solid guidelines that go beyond, "all UFC events are notable because they rulz!1!". You are fighting battles without having agreed on the rules of war. Stalwart 111 11:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I wouldn't be able to take UFCFan92's arguments seriously either but the event itself is nevertheless of encyclopedic notability on the same level as any number of established sports events articles (I would be happy to rattle off a few thousand if you like, although that might take a while). The targeting of MMA articles in particular has, at best, been arbitrary and capricious. I would reject WP:CRYSTAL for the event as a whole as the UFC has a 99.5% batting average when it comes to not canceling events, so the possibility of cancellation by all rights should be considered de minimis. As for notability, I would consider the amount of coverage that such an event gets as far ahead of time as being dissimilar to individual team sports games, and should not be considered as such as UFC events generally contain ~11 individual fights in up to 8 weight divisions (7 are currently represented on the current card, including a former Light Heavyweight world champion and four other #1 contenders in fights outside the main-event). I'm not trying to say each fight would be worth an article, as they are not, but they are individually important, much as different games in an NHL season are, which is why you never have articles for hockey games (short of the Miracle on Ice) but always have articles for every single NHL season or playoff series. Cumulatively the event is of considerable importance and is a very major event in combat sports. If folks would rather wait until within 48 hours of the event to ensure that injuries don't radically change the contested bouts, affecting WP:CRYSTAL, I am less opposed to that idea, but I must article that the article is worthy of encyclopedic preservation regardless. If it is restored I and WP:MMA can populate it with mainstream citations and establishment of notability as there is an ongoing effort to do that across MMA on Wikipedia, but obviously it would need to be restored first. Beansy ( talk) 06:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Not nessaserly as is proposed in the draft MMA article guidelines that you support "Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles" and "split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria for stand alone event articles" so this can be restored to User space, covered in an omnibus and then after it has taken place a view can be taken on spiting it out. Mt king ^(edits) 08:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As a compromise position I would support it (I believe even in that I argued for splitting off numbered articles between five days and two weeks ahead of time when all other standards were met, and for earlier split off when the notability was overwhelming ala UFC 157), but until an RfC is conducted that crystallizes policy I will continue to support the creation of new articles for major UFC events. I'm not exactly arguing for a separate article for the next King of the Cage event here. Beansy ( talk) 09:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Once again, the reasons presented for the initial request for deletion review aren't objective, but Beansy makes a good case for why the article would be notable. Furthermore, it still seems clear that attempts to delete UFC articles are based on overly strict interpretations of WP:NOT directed solely at UFC events. Byuusetsu ( talk) 07:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The event fails WP:NOT specificity the section that says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Mt king ^(edits) 08:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The closer correctly accepted the WP:NOT argument. As for "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes" - nonsense, that's not what an encyclopedia is for, there are specialist MMA sites to do that, see my comment in the UFC 155 DRV above this one. JohnCD ( talk) 11:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

2012 in UFC ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am requesting a review of the speedy deletion of 2012 in UFC for the following reasons:

1. I believe that the article 2012 in UFC events at the time of deletion was substantially different to the 2012 in UFC page at the time it was tagged, while I accept that the page may have resembled an prior version of 2012 in UFC events.
2. I believe that the reason for nomination is one that could have been fixed by editing rather than deletion, since when is "useless and worthless" a valid reason for deletion.
3. finally I believe (given the notice left on my talk page) it was tagged for deletion by a now blocked sock and therefore we should WP:DENY him or her recognition.

At very least this should go to another AfD. Mt king ^(edits) 23:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: Although both articles are on the same topic, they contain different content and structure. The earlier 2012 UFC article AFD was focused on the poor formatting and design of the article rather than notability itself. The latter version has information not found in the four omnibuses. At the very least there needs to be more community discussion than adding a speedy delete tag. Gizza ^{Talk ©} 04:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This whole thing is hard to follow. Is 2012 in UFC supposed to be something like 2012 in association football or 2012 NFL season (or generally articles at 2012 in sports)? Also, please history undelete 2012 in UFC events and 2012 in UFC so they can be reviewed in view of the above request. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply