Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer made a rapid SNOW close (< 24 hours) in the face of multiple reasonable allegations of canvassing. Consider that the reason for the apparent rush of similar opinions was the canvassing.

The closer appears to have taken an emotional approach to the matter, and flatly refuses to discuss. As such, he should have left it alone.

Many opined that the page was an attack page. This was illogical, considering the content of the page was a simple, calm summary of the most basic facts. There was no content that was remotely an attack on anyone. Mere hours before the close, the nominal attackee reconfirmed that he doesn't consider it so. In contrast, the alleged attack remains accessible, and the unacceptable category remains functional, containing 32 pages.

Some said the page amounted to a recreation of something deleted by the CfD. This is a weak claim as a major motivation for the deletion of the category was that it failed the usercatergory guideline.

The merits of the essay include: It is directly focused on a Wikipedian matter. It is relevant to the standard of conduct that the community expects of Arbs, It is relevant to the question of treatment and action against prolific but troublesome editors. It is relevant to the desire of some wikipedians to ustilise user categories and of others to tightly restrict the uses of usercategories.

These things were barely touched at the MfD, which was dominated but vocal sudden arrivals who appear to me to have emotional investment in the background story.

Some consider that the matter is a waste of time. In this community, we do not dictate to others on how they should contribute. The uniterested should ignore it. If everything related to the past incident were not raised in a public forum (compare Streisand effect), then it need not be seen by anyone who doesn't care.

I believe that the close should be reverted, with the closers comment converted to a !vote. was a bad close. --05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that many individuals consider the subject taboo, I suggest userfying to User:SmokeyJoe/A usercategory flurry in October 2012, blanking and full protection for three months(I have copied the cache version for whatever reference purpose I may have in future) --05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC). The valid issues involved are long term, and there is no rush to conclude anything. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse valid SNOW closure. In the first 24 hours 20 people said that the page should be deleted. Only 4 said that the page should be kept, some using very weak arguments ("this page is allowed based upon established precedent and policy"). Several other people expressed opinions arguing that the page doesn't warrant an extensive discussion, or advocated some solution they didn't necessarily agree with in order to avoid an extensive discussion. It was obvious that a full discussion would result in the page's deletion and there was no reason to keep it open for that long. The deletion rationale was based in policy, and disagreeing with that rationale is not an issue for DRV. The closer did not take an "emotional approach" - they merely made the (entirely reasonable) comment that editors' time could be better spent elsewhere. Userfication would not be a good idea, as it was clearly against the opinion in the discussion, wouldn't resolve the underlying issues, and its presence in userspace would violate WP:UP#POLEMIC (it is clearly " statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities", "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws", and "negative information related to others"). Hut 8.5 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

There was nothing in the essay attacking anyone. WP:POLEMIC, which I wrote, doesn't apply. In fact, my sympathy lies with JClemens, who in taking a strong position caused an out-of-proportion backlash, suggesting that direct attention on Incivility is a taboo subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The entire point of the page was to criticise Jclemens for a comment he made. That clearly makes it an attack. Even if you don't see this the vast majority of the MfD participants did. It would most certainly violate POLEMIC if it was moved to userspace. Hut 8.5 09:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

As the page creator, I assure you that it was not the point of its creation. I guess that you assume that by including a link to the initial statement unwelcome to some (as does this discussion here), that it constituted an attack? Whether it was a polemic is a matter for discussion at MfD, which was curtailed early. Agree that a polemic doesn't depend on its location. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Frankly, being the author of a guideline does not give you any special say whatsoever in applying it. This page plainly falls under the wording there. I don't think it was an attack just because it linked to the comment in question, I think it was an attack because the entire point of the page was to criticise Jclemens. The MfD was clearly rejecting userfication as an option. Hut 8.5 10:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Misunderstanding there? I created the essay as a study of reaction to a reaction to an aggressively uncivil editor. The intent was to encourage community self-reflection. Are you saying that you know my point better than me? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The issue is not your intentions but the effect of the essay, and the community clearly feels (from the MfD discussion) that the effect was to attack Jclemens. Hut 8.5 13:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

OK. It is not deleted bcause of its content, or purpose, but due to its perceived purpose, or use, or effect. I admit the following errors: (1) Using the provocative words for the title (catchy, but too upsetting); (2) starting an essay in project space of unclear purpose and negligible content (a collection of links); (3) listifying the category, which was not really consistent with the purpose, due it recording individuals' actions. (I intended to figure out who all these people were (as Wikipedians), before speculating on motivations collectively). I also didn't realise that JClemens was up for re-election, which means that now is not the best time for this. I still say it was a bad application of SNOW and that the MfD should have been left to run its course, but relisting now would probably not be a positive (at least, I have nothing needing to be added). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I was not canvassed and I iVoted WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND/ WP:NOTFACTIONS/ WP:POINT at the MfD. This entire blow up (categories --> CfD --> DRV --> CFD --> essay --> MfD -->DRV) was over Arbitrator Jclemens posting a 20 October 2012 opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee member ("all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian") [1]. If that were the ArbCom holding, yes, then essays, etc. could be developed. However, it only was one Arbitration Committee member's view and then was only one sentence among many posted during that Arbitration Clarification and Amendment request. It now is 16 November 2012, almost a month since the event. Jclemens indicated that it "wasn't intended as a personal attack." [2] The issue has been memorialized at CfD twice, DRV twice, MfD, Jclemens' talk page, and probably several other places. I think it's time to give creating categories, essays, user pages, etc. in furtherance of this issue a rest. As for the MfD close, I agree with Hut 8.5. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• What's this got to do with writing or improving an encyclopedia? Yup, we could send this back for another AFD and waste more time, or we could forget it. Cluestick the person who brought this to DRV and endorse.-- Scott Mac 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• "In this community, we do not dictate to others on how they should contribute." I disagree with that. In fact, that's exactly what guidelines and policies and pillars do. The first pillar is particularly relevant in this case: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We understand that you (and others) disagree with Jclemens' statement from a month ago. We get it. There is no need for a category or an essay (or a user page) to memorialize your disagreement, nor are the continuing attempts to express that dissent conducive to the first pillar. Everyone's opinions about Jclemens have been heard and noted. Now let's move on with our lives and do something constructive, keeping in mind the real reason that we're all volunteering our time here. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I have nowhere made any statement in support or disagreement with Jclemens' statement(s). I do note that they were an interesting development and that the community's reaction is interesting. Document events of interaction between ArbCom and the community is in the projects interest. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

It's already documented on the arbcom page where it was originally posted. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Existence in the huge page history is not documentation. The page here discussed contained a link to the diff, which I find very hard to find, neutrally contextualised mainly by Dmries, a record of the unacceptable user category, and a link to three deletion discussions. I agree that the deletion discussions were time not well spent. What exactly was wrong with the content. If I am able to find the diff again, if I record it, will you want to revdel my record of it? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

For goodness sake, the unfortunate remark has been discussed endlessly - the implication of "OMG diff censorship" is nonsensical. But we discuss contentions to resolve them on wikipedia, we don't memorialise divisive remarks and criticism of them. But we've been over this argument endlessly in the countless deletion discussion. Isn't it time to put down the stick and walk away from the horse carcass?-- Scott Mac 01:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

"What exactly was wrong with the content." See the 20 delete votes from the MfD for the answer to that question. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Arghh. Do you really ask me to give critcism of nearly every delete !vote? It is easy. It would be lengthly. Why it was not an attack page. Why it was not backdoor. Why it is not re-creation. There are simple clear answers to each of these. But that debate is not my interest, or anyone else's, it's just what hasty time-limited discussions force us into. I am not interested in the details of JClemens first statement, or in commenting on it further. What is interesting is that an isolated misstatement can produce such a result. It's the meta discussion that is interesting. There are real issues of incivility that are long running and corrosive. Some expect ArbCom to be decisive. However, on a hint of decisive opinion and there's angst, the evidence analysis deleted on the first step, and the Arb forced into BradSpeak. It's so frustrating that the the essay was deleted before it even got started. I just noticed that Uzma Gamal provided the original diff above. Nice, but that was just a spark, and to provide a wider meaning, much more context is required. I get that you're not intersted. Will someone just email the deleted content to me then please. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, you might want to coordiate your interests with Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party, which received a ringing keep endorsement from MfD. (I iVoted to delete WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party, but there was a strong keep majority for that project.) -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I assume that you mean kindness. As per my vote, I didn't regard that WikiProject as something that could be taken seriously. I don't have the answers, I don't think there are simple answers. A bit more self-reflection by the community might help. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• For fuck's sake It doesn't even matter what the category is supposed to mean any more. The point has been made long since; let it stay deleted, and let us never again speak of this black hole of bitterness and utterly pointless drama. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 06:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and speedy close this to boot, there is no way such a page could ever be accepted as it would unquestionably fail the WP:NPA policy. Mt king ^(edits) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• So now we're snow-deleting criticism of Wikipedia's governance arrangements. That's brilliant. Inspired. I'm sure the people who run the Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy will be delighted. Way to go, colleagues!— S Marshall T/ C 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • a) Since when did we care what "they" think? b) This is the "ZOMG Censorship of criticism" argument, and it is bullshit. There are dozens of places on Wikipedia for scrutinising our governance, and those we choose to govern us, not least an arbcom election. No sane person, who thinks about it for 30 seconds, can possibly argue wikipedia suppresses constructive criticism.-- Scott Mac 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Is it constructive for you to call me clueless and insane? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Scott: deleting people's discussion pages doesn't stop them saying the nasty hurtful things. It just means they say the nasty hurtful things off-wiki. Censorship is self-defeating.— S Marshall T/ C 14:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Sorry, you've run that argument several times and it fails spectacularly. Actually, I'm dead against censoring criticism - and no one is doing that. In this case you can, and people have, expressed criticism here, here, here, here or even significantly here, and probably in 50 other places. An aversion to censorship isn't an argument for allowing people to memorialise personal disputes in inappropriate places.-- Scott Mac 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
          • Sure, and it's fine for you and Snottywong to think that---and to say it. It's not really fine for you to use your admin powers to enforce it, though.— S Marshall T/ C 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - entirely appropriate use of SNOW. It was obvious even at an early stage that that discussion wasn't going to lead to anything other than a 'delete' outcome, and letting it continue would just have pointlessly prolonged the arguments and drama. Robofish ( talk) 23:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

OK, but to confirm, you are not concerned that the 20 hour SNOW close serves to reward the canvassing? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Posting a note on WP:AN, while unusual, is not really canvassing. The editors who watch AN (both admins and non-admins) are not more likely to vote one way or the other on this kind of MfD. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

A bunch of editors with no history at the essay page, it's talk page, my talk page or MfD suddenly arrive at a new discussion and mostly say the same illogical or wrong things. This is a clear sign of canvassing and the simplest reason to overturn to let the discussion run its course. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Canvassing implies bias. If someone posted a message to WP:Jclemens fan club, then that would be canvassing. If one posted a message only on the talk pages of editors who sympathize with Jclemens, then that would be canvassing. Posting a neutral message in a neutral venue is not canvassing. Please see WP:CANVAS for a strict definition. Surely, you can see how this argument resembles wikilawyering? ‑Scottywong | confer _ 07:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes. The posting to WP:AN, while unusual, was not inappropriate. But I do contend that it produced bias in the set of first responders. (either that or you are right). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If the neutral announcement at AN produced biased comments, then surely you can explain why the average editor who watches AN is inherently more likely to vote Delete than vote Keep at this MfD. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

There's not much sense in asking ppl to explain a phenomenon unless there is evidence that the phenomenon exists. What is your evidence about the inherent nature of AN watchers? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I understand BHGs question. The problem-bias is not WP:AN watchers (who include me), but very quick responders in what is meant to be a seven day discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse , per WP:POINT. The only reason I wouldn't really suggest a SNOW endorse is to counter the charges of censorship. Let everyone have their say one more time, and then maybe were finished with this. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant endorse. The numbers and arguments were leaning so heavily towards deletion that it is highly unlikely that this discussion would have have had any other outcome if it had run its course. However, applying a SNOW close here was a silly thing to do, and the closer deserves a good WP:TROUTing for it. Given the passions aroused in some circles about this episode, it was inevitable that a SNOW closure would lead to a DRV, so the aim of WP:SNOW (to save the community's time discussing it) was not fulfilled. All that the early closure achieved was to add yet another layer of recursion to a drama about a drama, and transfer the wrangling to here. As DGG ssys, now that we're at DRV, no more snow closes: let everyone have their say one more time here, and then we can all move on. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I understand and sympathize with your reasoning, but I disagree with the notion that the early closure forced anyone to take this to DRV. I don't think it's right to blame me for the DRV, since I wasn't the one who made the decision to start it in the face of clearly insurmountable odds. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You are of course quite right that nobody was forced to start this DRV. But I do think that you should have foreseen what would happen.

The related Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian was nominated for deletion at CFD Oct 24, speedily deleted, overturned at DRV Oct 24, and then relisted at CFD Oct 31. Whatever an admin's good intentions in short-circuiting the discussion process, trying it when passions are running high merely increases and prolongs the drama. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

This should be overturned (relisted) because the close was too early and prevented response to multiple erroneouse statements. If not overturned, I fear that it is a precedent for not being allowed to speak of difficult continuing matters. Every valid criticism can be remedied by a rename. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Neutral- meh, I don't think the debate could have closed any other way. But I must disagree with the notion that we are only permitted to voice opinions in specially designated areas and only at times deemed acceptable by the Supreme Grand High Archcensorate of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• If that were the state of the discussion after a week, it should be closed as delete. The problem is that it was populated by respondants to the canvassing and closed way early. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• If there had been canvassing, I would wholeheartedly agree. But a neutral notification at WP:AN is not WP:CANVASSing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• The canvassing was small c canvassing, no more. I don't criticise the MfD nominator for posting the note. The problem was the result, which was the sudden arrival of preconceived opinions not reflection the actual content. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Scott Mac and Writ Keeper. Valid deletion of bilious crap that was not intended for or conducive to the building of an encyclopedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Bilious? Are you really referring to the deleted essay page, which I presume you can access? Or the preceding brawls? Or just the title? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The urge to drag this bit of wikidrama out as long as possible is really proof enough that the deletion for being disruptive was entirely justified. Mangoe ( talk) 16:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - per Metropolitan90. Snappy ( talk) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Weakest endorse SNOW was wrong but it was unlikely to close in effect otherwise and don't see the good of dragging this out. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply

UFC_on_Fox:_Evans_vs._Davis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article being deleted is confusing even by the standards exhibited on what it takes to make an MMA event notable lately. The two top fights on the card were Rashad Evans vs. Phil Davis and Chael Sonnen vs. Michael Bisping. These fights were considered title eliminator fights at the time and Evans & Sonnen won those fights and went on to get main event title shots at UFC 145 and UFC 148 respectively, with the Sonnen-Silva rematch drawing over a million buys.

It really doesn't seem like the WP:MMAEVENT policies for what makes an MMA event notable are being followed with the indiscriminate deletions recently. Really, I haven't seen much interest in improving the pages in any way, simply in deleting them, and what is deleted seems to be very arbitrary and confusing. Byuusetsu ( talk) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. No argument asserting an improper close. This forum isn't for rehashing the AfD procedure just because one disagrees with the outcome. Closure seemed to follow the consensus of the discussion, handicapped by the rampant socking and SPAing typical of these MMA-related procedures. Scottywong (correctly) discounted such input. BusterD ( talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Do you not see the questioning of both what would make the article not notable and why the closing seems to violate the guidelines for what makes an MMA event notable? Maybe not since you're busy making baseless sockpuppet smears. Furthermore, the article for deletion page suggested redirection to a page that's gone now, probably because the omnibus event pages proved to be clunky and difficult to navigate. Byuusetsu ( talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse No rational given for this DRV other than WP:IDONTLIKE the deletion. On the closure it's self, no hint of anything improper, DRV is not AfD v2. Mt king ^(edits) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • See what I said above. Actually, your actions are more similar to WP:IDONTLIKE having MMA articles on the site. You claimed that in the AfD that it failed to be notable and I'm asking how it isn't notable when the biggest MMA company in the world has an event, on a major television channel, with the top two matches leading to main event title shots, with one of those shots coming on one of the UFC's biggest shows ever. Byuusetsu ( talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

It is not about what I like or don't like, of cause the MMA fans find in convent to use WP as a free web host to have a single results pages for each event, but consensus is that there are things that WP is not, WP is not a newspaper, not a stats book or not free web host, you can have that over at MMAwiki.com, in fact you can ask for the page sources for anything deleted here to be transferred over there. Mt king ^(edits) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Clearly it is about what some people like, since we're suddenly dealing with standards for what is or isn't notable that were never applied before. Also your claims that MMA fans are using Wikipedia as a "free web host" are extremely questionable. In fact, I really want to hear some statistics on how much space a site as huge as Wikipedia is burdened with having single pages for a company that adds 30 events or so per year. Byuusetsu ( talk) 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I get that this show certainly is notable, but the article about it (and some others) is lacking prose. The Background section is good, but without an Event or Aftermath section, I can understand why it may seem like just another MMA card to an unfamiliar reader. I'm not weighing in on this particular case, one way or another, just putting that out there for general purpose. Instead of arguing why these are notable in AfDs, show it in the article itself. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If an article is considered to fall short due to reasons of prose, the proper response would be to solicit improving the article as such, not deleting it. Furthermore how many sports tournament articles have "aftermath" sections? Before random UFC articles started getting deleted, it was actually quite easy to track the aftermath for particular fighters by tracking them to the next event they were on. The Korean Zombie was promised (albeit then rescinded) a title shot for his performance at UFC on Fuel 3, the first Korean fighter to ever reach #1 contender status in the UFC, in a match nominated for Match Of The Year in the annual MMA Awards. That article is gone now, which included 11 lesser fights as well that still had moved individuals further towards or away from title contention (Donald Cerrone, who is now in a scheduled Title Eliminator in January, also won on that card). It's one of many articles that had fit together to form a coherent narrative of the entire sport just as NFL season articles do. Beansy ( talk) 13:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Absolutely agree that improvement is better than deletion. An Aftermath section would work well to establish lasting signfificance (something the deletionists have been asking for forever). UFC events are booked and promoted similarly to pro wrestling events (with some glaring differences, of course), which use an Aftermath section well. It would save readers the time and effort to follow through the fighter's articles if we'd note the ramifications of each event (such as Jung's story). Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Endorse It's only been arbitrary and confusing because we have some admins that count votes when closing AFDs. In terms of votes, these AFDs would close as keep every time. In terms of strength of argument, not a one has been able to overcome the arguments against the articles that are based on WP:NOT. While it's possible that there will be a UFC event that needs an article some day, I'm not convinced it has happened yet.— Kww( talk) 14:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose and Comment Dear god. So, something like UFC 1 that is considered the genesis of the entire sport is not considered article-worthy? Something like UFC 117 that was the subject of a documentary because the main-event was basically the MMA's version of the Rumble in the Jungle fight? Or The Ultimate Fighter Finale 1 that is almost as a consensus credited with launching the boom-period for MMA in the U.S., just before a Yakuza scandal killed it in Japan, saving the sport at the elite level? Clearly these are not as notable as individual Family Guy episodes (you know, since there's a different page for each of the 192 episodes that have aired so far, and this is hardly a unique phenomenon). There are over a thousand different MMA fighter pages, most of whose merit is based on the notability of the events they have been in, with direct links in their fighter tables, but those events that define notability are not considered notable themselves? You also have decided on your own that what other admins were doing in denying AfD requests was merely "counting votes." Perhaps you should re-read some of those. No offense but you are not inherently superior to the other admins, and you have used arguments you have used regarding WP:NOT are ones others have addressed countless times (trying to compare a UFC event to a college football game or something similar has only been something that's been addressed about 15,000 times now). There are also multiple good reasons event articles specifically are and had always been the consensus standard. There are very few individual fights that one would consider article-worthy but modern UFC events contain about 11 fights each. Omnibus articles have been attempted and they are unwieldy, lower-information, harder to navigate, and less user friendly, while taking up more bandwidth since one has to load the entire page to find specific information. Perhaps you should extend your reasoning to start an edit war on individual Formula One races or individual Curling tournaments, except any given UFC event has ramifications across multiple weight divisions, and unlike boxing there is only a single true champion in each one and half as many weight divisions, with all world titles and 85% of the world's elite talent housed under a single promotional umbrella. Even if you swept all other arguments aside, the UFC pages were well organized, very popular, informational, useful, and completely inoffensive, while referring to extremely mainstream events. They also had their own self-regulating community and official set of guidelines that were uninterrupted for years. They fell very neatly under Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar until a single-digit number of people spearheaded by a single-editor launched a war on them without giving an actual motivation for a war that's been going on for over a year (but having little problem belittling MMA fans as "fanboys"). Wikipedia is not about winning, but you wouldn't know it from the way this war has been conducted. Beansy ( talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose I'm going to be quite frank here, Kww. If you don't think there has ever been a UFC event that was notable enough for its own page, you shouldn't be commenting on MMA at all, ever. It's also a sign of massive bias, especially with your assumption that other admins merely "count votes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but discussions like this are not fanboy-only zones. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- the close seemed to be well grounded in policy and consensus. This nomination provides no argument to overturn other than "I disapprove of the result", which is not a reason at all. Reyk _YO! 03:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If you're arguing policy and consensus, maybe the first thing you shouldn't go to is "fanboy" claims. Check WP:PA. Also, people have still completely ignored my notes about the WP:MMA standards, and if you're arguing that no UFC events are noteworthy enough for an article that's self-evidently ridiculous. Byuusetsu ( talk) 20:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You're trying to get Kww (and me) excluded from the debate on account of not being fans of UFC. That is unacceptable, and it will not work. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but no, thinking no UFC event EVER deserves its own page goes far beyond "not being a fan of UFC" and into ridiculousness. Thinking events relevant to the popularity and cultural impact of the sport, and events that have had 1,000,000+ viewers, are not noteworthy is not a position that I can see being explained in a logical fashion. There's been more of an effort to specifically target UFC articles than there's been a bias towards saving them. Byuusetsu ( talk) 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Has anyone said no individual UFC event can ever have a page? No. You're putting words in people's mouths. Kww explicitly says "While it's possible that there will be a UFC event that needs an article some day" which is definitely not the same thing as "no UFC event EVER deserves its own page". It's actually the exact opposite. You then accuse Kww of having a massive bias and that he should not comment on this topic. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not let fans of various things decide who can and cannot comment on those things. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

He didn't say "definitely", but he indicated a strong possibility that no UFC event EVER deserves its own page, which goes beyond bias and into extreme levels of ignorance. If you are even tangentially a sports fan you know how crazy that sounds. It's like saying "it's possible a NASCAR race might deserve its own page some day." Beansy ( talk) 05:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Uh, no, "a UFC event MIGHT deserve its own page someday" is not the opposite of "UFC articles should never have pages". It is basically the same statement, because if events like UFC 1, The Ultimate Fighter 1 Finale, and UFC 100 don't deserve their own pages, it's difficult to comprehend a UFC event that would deserve its own page. It isn't a matter of being "fans" either, UFC events are more relevant than a huge number of events on this site. And I'm not invoking WP:OSE with that, because many of those articles are good as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose. This event has more notability than many of the existing UFC events. Also, for sake of consistency, please restore the article. There should be a policy against inconsistency on WP. Oskar Liljeblad ( talk) 21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply