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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Raju[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems that the issue is the language of the references, as the nominator has marked three Estonian-language sources as "failed verification", while in fact, two of the sources do not fail verification in any way (third is a blog post). I have no opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but it seems that the event is pretty widely represented in press (Google News Search) - and marking valid sources with "failed verification" to nominate the article for deletion seems... not right. --Sander Säde 13:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Failed_verification/doc:

"Use this tag only if a source is given, you have checked the source, and found that the source says something other than what is contained in the text, or for whatever reason is illegible or unreadable."

This tag is also the tag ((Not in citation)) and ((Not specifically in source)). I looked at the sources and did not see anything to back up the article statement. Please recommend me an alternative tag to use, if you wish. jmcw (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly failed verification with Postimees and MMA.ee? Both say what the article has. --Sander Säde 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on [1], I do not see the statement "It is the largest mixed martial arts promotion in Estonia and one of the largest promotions in the Scandinavian and Baltic regions." When I click on [2], I do not see the statement "Almost one thousand spectators were present." jmcw (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even attempt to use an automatic translation? We do not require sources to be in English - we prefer English sources, but if there are no English sources, all other languages are perfectly acceptable. If you do not understand the language of the source, then that is not a ground to say that the source failed verification. --Sander Säde 10:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources: I do not have to translate non-English references. jmcw (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the guideline. Nothing in there says that if you are unable to understand the source, then it becomes invalid or unverifiable. If that would be so, then we would have to throw out half of the Wikipedia, if not more. Please remove now the failed verification tags from verifiable sources and be far, far more careful with such tags in the future. --Sander Säde 12:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate these references into English. jmcw (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: 1, 2. --Sander Säde 13:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have added them to the article and removed the tags. jmcw (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found some MMA notability guidelines at MMA notability. Based on those, this organization is not considered notable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two aforementioned articles fail to show any notability. One is just a list of results fron an event, which WP:N clearly says in non-notable. The other is a list of rules, clearly another reference showing no notability. Also, this organization is not considered notable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2010 (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.