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. The clear consensus is that this does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The main "keep" argument is that an encyclopedia should record everything, but Wikipedia decided long ago not to go down that route, and WP:Notability and WP:NOT define limits to its coverage. It is also argued that the SFL is a notable organization, and indeed it has its own page at Super Fight League, but it does not follow that each of its events is individually notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFL 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SFL 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This MMA event fails WP:MMAEVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage it has received is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, which clebs attended and the results). The article fails to demonstrate the events lasting effect, none of the references show continued coverage lasting beyond the end of the event. Mtking (edits) 04:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 04:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LMAO, I am amazed by the amount of policies there are that any page can survive a AfD. The amount of policies out there for a simple page with so many different rules and guidelines is absolutely ridiculous, and I am amazed that so many people actually care about every single one of them! On this AfD alone, I can clearly see that the amount of policies that people are claiming this page 'fails' makes it into the double figures, yet in terms of coverage, the UFC meets a similar number, yet I don't see this kind of 'lets deleted it because it fails 99 out of 100 policies' approach towards them, even though you do get people trying to do so under these reasons. Wikipedia is going to the dogs simply because of these improperly written policies being made by people under 'consensus', many of which are either written, contributed or being enforced by people who admittedly say that they have no interest what-so-ever in the topic, and they are being used as a reason why to keep or delete a page.

Now I want to just remind everyone of this one simple fact that everyone actually seemed to have forgotten - THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! An encyclopedia keeps record of EVERY that has happened, regardless of how newsworthy, or even whether it is newsworthy now, next week, ten years ago, or since before the dawn of time. Wikipedia keeps record of anything that is relevant, which actually includes sport results, but due to this ridiculous system that somehow came into place, it can be debated. This isn't a debating website for information, this is an information website. Anything should be given a spot on here and no-one should really be debating otherwise.

When you think about, who has ever been so offended by seeing an article on here (that may need an article or two to prove notability) that they decide it is somewhat illegal and decide to have such information remove from here entirely? Who is it actually affecting by having a page for India's first MMA event on Wikipedia, and if it is how is it affecting them? Is someone dying because they look on the page and found out The New York BadAss commentated on the event, or that James Thompson defeated Bob Sapp because Bob had a leg injury during the fight? And what is it that the people get out of successfully deleting a page? A pat on the back? Someone telling you 'Well done'? Giving you a cash reward? Giving you a high honour in the real world where they'd recognise you as 'Sir' or 'Dame'? Don't think so, all that your getting for deleting page after page is more hardship from the same or different users for deleting pages that provide the very thing that all encyclopaedias offer - information. Users like TreyGeek admit that pages are being created faster than they are being deleted and why is that? Because pages here are not meant to be deleted, they are meant to remain on here. It is easier to create 10 pages full of information on 10 different topics than deleting one page full of information on one topic. The information on here is free, Wikipedia is free, no-one gets paid to create nor delete pages, and it is far easier to create than delete, so why must we actually argue about whether a certain topic should remain on here when the reality of it is that this is an encyclopedia, a place where all information on any topic should be welcomed. I think people should start to realise this fact now! BigzMMA (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to point out another policy to you BigzMMA but An encyclopedia keeps record of EVERY that has happened is not true and I suggest you read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bjmullan (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bigz, The point of the wiki is to have a relatively neutral collection of the notable aspects of knowledge. Rather than lobby on every single MMA based deletion for a systemic change to what the wiki is, you should be lobbying at the Village pumps for the systemic change. We have to go by what is on the books currently for policies/guidelines/consensus. Have you consiered setting up a MMA Wiki that is more focused and can set standards that are only applicable to MMA subjects? Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bjmullan I'm afraid to point out that you have make the wrong text bold :P and Hasteur, what is the point of even having a normal Wikipedia if nearly every subject has to be broken down into categorised Wikipedia website? There is really no point of having a Wikipedia at all if every subject cannot be on here. And as far as the policies goes, think about it, if no-one at all tries to enforce these policies, or to defend them, or use them in any way, then whats going to happen? no-ones going to punish you for not pointing it out nor rewarding you for doing so. It is for the best if we remove many of these un-necessary policies so that there will never again be confusion about this being just a selected information site that removes useful information within 2 years of being put on here. BigzMMA (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So BigzMMA do they have any rules in MMA or is just a free for all like you are suggesting here? Another policy to look at is WP:NOTSOAPBOX which I think your rant above might breach. Bjmullan (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about an article on the SFL, but on the single event SFL 1. Different question, and hence probably a different answer. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This to be precise. Super Fight League Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)::[reply]
Times of India? Opposing Views? HindustanTimes.com? Mid-Day.com? DailyMail.co.uk? Your telling me that these papers are exclusively MMA papers? Did you even look at the articles on the SFL 1 page to see their notability? Don't think so, just another improperly made delete vote which should immediately be made void until the user has proven he has looked into the subject in more detail other than what appears to be a 2 second look at a Google result. I do agree that the SFL is a strong second tier promotion at worse, so lets make that happen now so that there will be no more future confusions about this subject. BigzMMA (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your point at all, daily mail especially seems to be a good, independent source. HindustanTimes.com might fall under WP: ROUTINE. I crossed out the first part of my vote, but I still stand by the lack of importance of the event. Please don't assume that I'm not interested or knowlegdable about the subject. --Pat (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate the fact that you admitted you were wrong to say it wasn't covered by any paper outside of MMA. However, the fact that the event had been covered by India's version of the New York Times in more than just one article shows that it was viewed as a very important event. Mix in the fact that this is the very first MMA event to happen in India by India's first MMA promotion, the stars of Bollywood attending the event and lets not forget the main event was Bob Sapp vs James Thompson, two men who grew their names and reputations in Pride FC and throughout Asia means that this event has significant importance, also lets not forget that this is probably (though it may need to proven if false) the first MMA event to stream live on Youtube and the fact that it was covered on national sport news on television must add to the case to keep. BigzMMA (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points. I think the promotion itself is at this point notable. I'll wait a while to comment again on these pages. To me SFL events can prove to be notable by adding current top fighters and continuously promoting shows with large media coverage. Otherwise, I still question the "lasting effect" of these shows. WP:MMAEVENT --Pat (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2012 (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.
More