Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 158

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 December 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 158

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the event is still about three months away, the numerous primary routine sources quoted just cover the announcements of who is going to appear which NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is no attempt in the article to demonstrate what the lasting significance of this event will be, there will I have no doubt be 11 winners and 11 looser but beond that any significance at this stage will be pure speculation.
For the avoidance of doubt this nomination has nothing to do with the events notability or not, as a professional sports event, meeting the WP:GNG is not in doubt, however that is no guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article in an encyclopedia if, as in this case, it fails the inclusion policy. Mt king^(edits) 11:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's an upcoming UFC event. Why delete it and redo it later. Leave it up and people can build on it as information becomes available. At 3 months out, we will start seeing the fight card come together over the next couple weeks. Absolutely silly to try to delete it.Willdawg111 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An article 2013 in UFC should be created to omnibus this and other UFC event articles not yet ready for stand alone articles. Kevlar (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not even UFC 155 yet, and already we are setting up the card for 158. We don't even know if that's the official card, yet. Wait awhile, and recreate it when it's more sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.214.85 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This event has a title fight that has been years in the making, it will have lasting significance. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This will be more relevant as we get closer to the date no point in deleting it now then remaking it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.202 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The keep arguments have failed to address issues with this article, particularly in light of other recent AfDs in which future UFC events were deleted. Also the article currently fails WP:SPORTSEVENT due to its lack of well-sourced prose; it has practically no prose. I would advice those wishing to keep the article would do better to write actual prose discussing the background of the event thus far as it would bolster any notability arguments they are attempting to make. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an omnibus page until it can be established whether the event will be notable or not. The coverage right now is routine, speculation, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Once the event gets significant coverage, it can be spun out into its own article. CaSJer (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a presumption among anyone with the faintest knowledge of MMA that every UFC event will have a lasting impact. Yes, 11 losses and 11 wins are a lasting impact. 176.254.114.25 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A championship fight that's been several years in the making, along with two contender fights with major impact on the potential next challenger for the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) Welterweight (170 lbs) Championship. I was even kind enough to put the meanings in brackets, because I'm convinced the originators of this Witch hunt have not the foggiest clue as to what they are talking about. Killswitch Engage (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The deletionists are just going to keep ruining wikipedia. This issue with UFC articles is just a small portion of a larger problem; there's a systemic flaw in the way deletions are proposed and the completely arbitrary nature of their resolution. And as a result, the consequences is rewarding those destroy and driving away those who contribute. In the words of Wikipedia's founder: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." As long as deletionists get to have their way, this dream will never be realized. --Shponglefan 8:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Vote struck - quack quack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upcoming welter weight championship; reliable and independent sources for this type of event are heavily prevalent and WP:FUTURE specifically states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As stated in other AfD's, CRYSTAL is mainly to discourage editors from making assumptions about events. The main problem with UFC would be WP:NEVENT, but as evident at WP:MMANOT, another policy is required to assert the notability of MMA events where NEVENT cannot. As such, the coverage for this event is significantly more than previous upcoming events where the event itself is the subject of the publication. Mkdw ^talk 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mkdw. Also, even if event has yet to occur, it has already received plenty of media coverage. [1] [2] [3] [4] are just some examples. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:31, 28 December 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.