Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 7

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 7

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

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1995 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There aren't multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that make analytic or evaluative claims about the event to presume that as a topic it passes general notability guideline. All that exist falls into routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect of the event, which makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. Also, the article is at best a news report, so it falls into what Wikipedia is not, and the event does not meet the exception criteria of WP:SPORTSEVENT since, outside routine coverage, there are no independent reliable sources indicating that the event is notable and there is no sanctioning body or league to presume that it is inherently notable. With no target for a redirect and a single reference, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine primary news reports, fails the WP:NOT policy as it fails as an event to demonstrate enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 06:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:49, 9 June 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.