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. Not even one argument to keep the article is based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. Perceptions of witch hunts and personal agendas don't influence the decision to keep or delete an article (and this really isn't the right forum to discuss those types of accusations). I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 148[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

UFC 148 (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)

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per witch hunt and personal agenda by a handful of people. This is a completely relevant MMA event WP:MMAEVENT and is far more notable WP:NOTABLE than any of the America's Next generic reality show clones and fake sitcoms which have pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion. Every UFC event from 148 to 1 has an article here on Wikipedia. Every UFC event that gets announced has an article several months ahead of time, just look around. It has never been a problem before, I have no idea why this user is flagging this article for deletion now. You're breaking a routine that's been in place for several years and has never been a problem before. It's even more surprising that, of all the events you would flag, you would choose this one which is going to contain 2 championship bouts and one of the biggest and most hyped rematches in the history of the sport. Courier00 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Speedy Keep. What is up with this mass AfDing of UFC Event articles? This event clearly meets WP:MMAEVENT. It's an event held by the most prominent MMA organization in the world and the co-main events are two title fights. This AfD is patently absurd. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a witch hunt or personal agenda. Here is your independent and reliable source with all the story around this event: http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/7850229/anderson-silva-vs-chael-sonnen-moved-ufc-148-las-vegas. You people should think about improving 2012 in UFC events before deleting all those articles like there were no tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage, the ref listed by the IP above is just another example of the routine type of coverage all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mtking ^(edits) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per witch hunt and personal agenda. Portillo (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article appears to contain only "routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements". It contains only one non-MMA related source which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" or to assert why the event is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Portillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.46.128 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of the most notable events in UFC history! Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking you need to stay out of these. You are ruining a very long history of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShane39569 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge Fails multiple notability policies, fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge into omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Mixed Martial Arts events, especially those promoted by the UFC, are notable beyond the scope of team-sport coverage which has hundreds, or thousands of games every season. There exists a seperate Wikipedia article for every scheduled event on the Senior PGA Champions Tour. Every currently scheduled official UFC event will receive greater coverage and more notability in the media than the Greater_Hickory_Classic_at_Rock_Barn which has it's own article and is not AfD. The only referenced sources on the article about the aforementioned golf article, are the event's own webpage, and pgagolf.com, which is no different than referencing ufc.com Rissx (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That article has nothing to do with the notability of this one. see WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, I have tagged it to be merged to the Champions Tour page and will do so after a week of discussion, unless magically consensus is against it. I would nominate that page for AfD too, but to do so in reaction to another WP:OTHERSTUFF would be pointy. WP needs maintenance, you are going to find alot of examples that shouldn't have a stand alone article, if you are that concerned with them, nominate those articles to AfD. Otherwise focus on this article and what makes it notable. After all, it's WP:NOTAVOTE.Newmanoconnor (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 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.