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 merge to Amaury Bitetti . MBisanz talk 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitetti Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing to show this organization meets WP:ORG. The only coverage is routine sports coverage about upcoming fight cards or results. There's no significant independent coverage of the organization and it doesn't matter who founded it or who was going to be a ref at one of their events. Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The show took place at the 19,000-seat Maracanazinho in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and aired nationally on pay-per-view.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last week's Baltimore-Denver game was seen be 80,000 live with temperatures 25 degrees below freezing plus tens of millions of people watching, yet it's not notable. Your argument doesn't wash. In addition, I don't see how WP:ORGDEPTH is met. You dismiss my routine coverage comment, yet you quote a guideline that requires "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements." As far as translations go, you might want to look at WP:NONENG, especially when your whole claim of notability is based on them. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:45, 23 January 2013 (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.