UFC 27 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Undelete: I strongly feel that this article should be brought back for further discussion. I'll probably be shot down but I feel it's worthwhile. With a little more sourcing, it could have easily complied with WP:MMANOT. Luchuslu

• There's nothing on the page at this time other than a DRV notice; I can't review it. If this is how the page started out, though, then endorse. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• It won't have been, though. The DRV notice is there in order to ask an admin to temporarily undelete the content for review purposes. DGG is often the admin who does this. Before I reply on the more substantive matter, though, is this an isolated case or are we going to have deletion reviews for a whole lot of UFC-related pages? If the latter I suspect we may be better off taking a lot of pages together rather than having separate reviews for each one.— S Marshall T/ C 01:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AFD is mislinked in the header; it's actually at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_27. The close accurately reflects the rather routine discussion, and the nom here provides no arguments otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- the consensus was clear, and this DRV request amounts to nothing more than "I don't like the result". Reyk _YO! 04:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse given the debate couldn't have been closed any other way, meeting WP:MMANOT is not an indication of notability. That's an essay by the wikiproject giving some guidance, essentially if it doesn't meet that then it's unlikely to meet the real guidelines,but meeting those does not mean the core guidelines are met. That essay includes some horrible things " the longer the organization has been around, the more notable." which is utterly false, age is not a notability criteria -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 08:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep per strength and factual accuracy of arguments per WP:COMMONSENSE. Article is clearly Wikipedic based on consensus of good faith editors and factual reality. An AfD is not a vote and the calls to delete were either nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or lack of knowledge of the subject and lack of motivation to find sources per WP:BEFORE. -- 24.112.202.78 ( talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

History restored for the DRV discussion. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 13:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- 24.112.202.78 ( talk) 15:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC) -This IP has been confirmed to be a sock of community-banned editor User:A Nobody. reply

• Endorse (Disclosure, I vote Merge on the AfD) The writing is on the wall. The policy based consensus is crystal clear. Not surprised that DRV is being treated as "AFD Round 2" by editors and IP addresses that have been known to externally canvas for supporters to their cause. Hasteur ( talk) 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Consensus was clear at AfD Newmanoconnor ( talk) 16:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse No attempt was made during the AfD to demonstrate with sources that this event is indeed an event of enduring notability and absent that demonstration it fails the WP:NOT policy. Mt king ^(edits) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The close accurately reflects the AfD consensus, and no arguments are provided to overturn. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse-Being that the one keep argument was essentially " undeniably notable", there really could have been no other result. That said, I would not be opposed to userfication if Luchuslu (or anyone else) thinks they can address the concerns.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete WP:COMMONSENSE. Plus I don't think any of the MMA editors who actually ADD TO the wealth of MMA knowledge on Wikipedia had knowledge of this AfD, as opposed to those who would like Wikipedia to scrub all references pertaining to MMA off the site. Amazing we have the same "gang" here, arguing to keep MMA off Wikipedia. WP:BATTLEGROUND AugustWest1980 ( talk) 19:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Proper AfD and close, and nothing in the nomination arguing otherwise. Allow WP:Userfication for Luchuslu ( talk · contribs), if he asks, to allow him to add sourcing, if he can do so in a reasonably short time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. AfD was properly conducted; no abuse of discretion. Neutrality ^talk 14:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• endorse as reasonable, though I notice the results of AfDs on what to me appear to be identically weak articles is extremely variable, depending on who has the patience to deal with them; the only people consistently present are the fans. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Properly formatted, properly executed, and now being brought for a review by the tiny coterie of irredentist fanatics who refuse to accept the results of the whole series of MMA discussions. DRV is not a place for AfD Round Two. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Consensus was clearly to delete, there is no new information here, so I don't see a basis for doing anything other than endorsing (although userfication may be appropriate per SmokeyJoe. Rlendog ( talk) 19:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above and a brief review. Comment: there is a related RFC here. JJB 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Change to neutral, meaning that endorsing would neglect the following aspect. There is also now an RFC/U at which the argument is raised that, though deletion may be locally clear, it may be somewhat disruptive to consideration of the question of resolving compliance in hundreds of other articles, and thus not an improvement. No prejudice to an "endorse" close here, and the right of outside consensus at either RFC to undelete later. JJB 14:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse, consensus was clear at the AfD, and I see no reason to believe it was incorrect. WP:MMANOT is not a policy or guideline, but notability and Wikipedia is not a directory are. I see no reason to believe that this article meets or could meet either of those, and none has been presented by the nominator. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - An easy way to move a new article on UFC 27 (UFC 27: Ultimate Bad Boyz was a mixed martial arts event held by the Ultimate Fighting Championship on September 22, 2000 at Lake Front Arena in New Orleans, Louisiana) would be to write a user space article using enough reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article. Importance is subjective, and the AfD's consensus being based on personal beliefs makes it a weak delete. If you find enough reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article, that will show that the reliable sources think the topic was important enough and that's sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFD was correctly handled. MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Pro-death ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Unsalt: Fully described at User:John J. Bulten/Pro-death. While this is straightforward new-article creation from one angle (as dab rather than redirect), from another it is appropriate to invite review of my proposed content at that link. Because of salting, the usual DRV situation does not apply; rather, the question is whether the evidence attached to my proposal is sufficient to affirm a dab page among capital punishment, death in culture, apoptosis, etc. It is my hope that this will proceed conscientiously without being tainted by its tangential relation to a current hot-button debate elsewhere on WP. JJB 21:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on whether to unsalt, but I find pro-death's implied contrast with pro-life concerning here. If unsalted, this page must be at least semi-protected.— S Marshall T/ C 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• It could only be a Dab page. The collection of the separate subjects would be original research, although as soon as a reputable secondary source is found I expect that a good article could be written. I would tentatively support allowing creation of the Dab page, noting that the RfD was weak, that a Dab page was proposed and not countered in the RfD, and because it is borderline interesting in itself. I would think that this request belongs at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I don't oppose it here. I am not persuaded that if created as a Dab page, this page should be pre-emptively at least semi-protected. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks and I don't think I have an opinion about semiprotection of a dab. Per the userpage, RFP was declined on the grounds that it should have wider discussion than a single admin, and I tentatively agree. If there were ever to be an article beyond a dab (which I don't strongly favor at this moment), it would need to be understood as required to stay a set-index article or broad-concept article, due to the source weight I identified, and to be semiprotected; then the appropriate entries would be moved to "pro-death (disambiguation)" per WP:WPDAB process. JJB 00:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, agreeing with both SM and SJ above. - jc37 01:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt and allow semi-protected DAB creation - I see the value in listing things like human death: war, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, and jihad on one page. Kamikaze and seppuku also should be listed and there probably is others, and creating the DAB will allow others to build on the pro-death concept. The draft DAB giving predominance to capital punishment meaning of pro-death seems right. Listing pro-death topics beyond human death seems correct, too. Also, the draft DAB asserting that pro-death is a pejorative term for abortion and listing it among several pejorative terms handles that troubling issue well. Allow DAB creation, but semi-protect per S Marshall. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks all. Maybe a speedy close as I see no objection? JJB 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Give that someone down the road may object, it's better to get a seven day close (after 21:29, 13 May 2012) to give strength to the consensus. The human death aspect is interesting. Besides mother nature, there's only a few ways a person' seath comes about - either self choice (e.g. suicide) or choice of others (e.g. execution), and the choice of others can be/seen as positive or negative. Good DAB. Makes you think. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt - The user page makes a good case that this is an appropriate dab term. Rlendog ( talk) 19:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt as a good case has been made that an appropriate article/DAB can be made here, but we definitely need to indefinitely semiprotect and take a heavy hand against any POV pushing or edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would cautiously oppose the re-creation at this time. Given the recently concluded Arbcom actions and RFC on abortion titles, I would be concerned with this new DAB immediately becoming a new battleground for this dispute. This may be the rare case the the temporary exclusion of a page would decrease editing disputes and it isn't essential as the search function provides a similar service. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

  I think that there is a very specific plan for creation at this point. Think we can split the difference and allow the creation, then fully protect for 3 months or so to let any kerfuffle from the rfc die down?? - jc37 03:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• What kerfuffle, Arbcom actions and RFC on abortion titles? Could you please give links? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply