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 keep. One two three... 20:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship[edit]

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

New MMA organization that has only promoted one event. They don't meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT and there is no significant independent coverage.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the only event this organization has promoted and it fails to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship: Champion vs. Champion

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This org and its first event actually generated quite a bit of coverage. It is unique because of the many partnerships it has developed with other Asian MMA promotions, and its institution of former Pride rules. It received international television coverage that far exceeded that of other first-time events. Both articles already have some sources. More can be added to demonstrate its notability. Not all of the fighters that competed are notable, but that doesn't mean that the event wasn't, particularly in that part of the world. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ONE Fighting Championship has already drawn millions of viewers in Asia, as Osubuckeyeguy notes. The amount of coverage in Asia also easily gets it notability with "Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage." Udar55 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization, Delete event The article on the organization needs better sources (something beyond sherdog), but that's not a reason for deletion. At least, not when they appear to be out there. However, I found nothing to show the event passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. It appears to be just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here's a selection of national newspaper and independent news coverage:

Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2011/07/27/2003509241

Bangkok Post http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/254778/yodsanan-has-a-go-at-mixed-martial-arts http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/254778/yodsanan-has-a-go-at-mixed-martial-arts

MSN http://sports.xin.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5455857

CNNGO http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/play/one-fighting-championship-fight-end-all-fights-347928

Channel News Asia http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1140900/1/.html

Today (Singapore newspaper) http://www.todayonline.com/Sports/EDC110903-0000300/A-show-on-the-cards-at-One-Fighting-Championship

There are hundreds more out there, these are just the first few I found.61.90.28.35 (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — 61.90.28.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete event All of the articles mentioned above are of the "local fighter will be fighting at ..." variety and none show the event has the lasting significance or importance required for notability at WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the organization has only sponsored one event, merging the event details into the organization page seems very reasonable to me if the consensus is to not retain the individual event page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean listing the event on the organization's page, that's fine with me. However, it looks to me like someone is planning on creating articles on the upcoming events as well and I don't believe any of the events qualify as notable enough for their own article. Astudent0 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Osubuckeyeguy's masterful argument above. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2011 (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.