Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 8

[edit]
UFC 8 (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 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]

The lede of the article mentions nothing about a league or a top league, and the only place the word "championship" appears is in the name of the company that is being promoted.  What is this top league that is having a championship?  Here is what WP:SPORTSEVENT says,

* The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final

Note that all of those examples are teams, not individuals.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fairly certain all the other AfD's you opened were closed, at least a majority of them, with "No Consensus" being the result. This one may have been overlooked but I see it being the same, these AfD's need to wait until the policies and guidelines are clarified before anything can be decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THEDeadlySins (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions should comment on contributions, not contributors, as this helps to preserve Wikipedia as a group of colleagues in a common endeavor of building an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable top event in it's sport, just because you don't watch or like this particular sport doesn't mean it should be deleted, this is like me AFDing the superbowl because I don't like American Football, ridiculous nom Seasider91 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that a topic is notable without evidence is called a proof by assertion.  What evidence is there that it is notable?  Contributions should comment on contributions, not contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you live under a rock? The UFC is one of the largest combat sporting organizations in the world. Its events have generated over one million pay per view buys at certain events. This is like demanding evidence that the NFL or NBA is notable. This deletion premise is ridiculous and a waste of our time. 97.100.97.195 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a contribution with a logical fallacy ("do you live under a rock" is an appeal to emotion that does not advance the discussion), IMO does little but put other readers on alert that a contribution is likely to have additional logical fallacies.  Predictably, hyperbole is found in the words "ridiculous" and "waste".  In the middle of this sandwich of logical fallacy, the main point of the contribution is that UFC is a notable organization, and that the reason to have an article about UFC 8 is because UFC is notable.  However, notability is not inherited, and no evidence has been provided for UFC 8.  The nutshell of WP:N states, "We consider evidence..."  In summary, the previous contribution provides support for an outcome to this AfD of delete and redirect to UFC.  As far as how big the company is, Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp suggests that the company (name is Zuffa), has 16 employees and is located in Las Vegas, NV.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why you find such emotion and anger is because people like us spend hours of our precious time creating and building these legitimate pages in order to educate people about a topic we are passionate about, and people like you come on here and threaten to erase everything we've selflessly spent our time on. We edit in good faith and obey the rules of Wikipedia, and to have our contributions deleted for very questionable and very debatable reasons is demoralizing and is shying us away from helping Wikipedia in the future. As for "notability", the UFC is a major sports promotion. The "evidence" you ask can be seen in the massive amount of pay per view buyrates some cards have generated. In particular, the event UFC 100 drew 1,600,000 buys[1] on pay per view at $60 dollars per buy. That is plenty of evidence that this event, held under the same promotion and featuring a major championship still in existence today for the same promotion, is notable. 97.100.97.195 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[WP:N] states that it, "...is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  [WP:N#Notability requires verifiable evidence] states, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."  Every one of these exceptions seems to apply, there is no evidence that "UFC 8" has gained significant independent coverage, no evidence that "UFC 8" has gained significant independent recognition, and it appears to have had "short-term interest" if it had any attention at all.  Collecting sports trivia appears to fall into WP:NOT indiscriminate information.  We know for a fact that these events are created by a promoter, so it is indisputable that the encyclopedia is having to deal with "promotional activity"; not a matter of "if", but "how much".  The topic being discussed here is a 1996 event known as "UFC 8", not the notability of the "UFC 100" in 2009, which is the source the previous post has provided.  Where is there any case to be made that we should "Ignore all rules" here?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes have a problem in that they do not explain the conclusion based on Wikipedia policies, so do not contribute to the building of consensus.  Claiming that an event is "widely" reported on and not providing sources is a proof by assertion that is not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain you must've googled UFC 8, and found that there are many, many results returned. While admittedly, these may not be completely reliable, peer-reviewed journals or anything, it should be clear that there is plenty of interest in these events. The verifiability claims, I feel, should be weighed against their potential damage, as is the case, e.g., in BLP's - i.e., the risk that potentially damaging information is inserted is too great to be lax on NPOV, V, and OR. This article, on the other hand, is simply mostly a who-fought-who list, that is easily verifiable by searching Google; search for example, "Shamrock Kimbo Kimo UFC 8", and you'll find, as Google puts it, "about 893,000 results". Again, I recognize that these are not all valid references, but I really feel that this kind of list is a quick, useful reference tool that Wikipedia can provide better and more efficiently than searching the internet for it. Zujua (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't duplicate the previous results.  This link returns 845 Googlehits, not 893,000 Googlehits.  One of the links on this page is a 1923 book by the California State Mining Bureau.  We also get "Missionary review of the world", and "The Cambridge Ancient History".  Even in MMA related hits, we get a "Staples Center Tickets" for "UFC 8/4/2012", and one that reads "ufc 8:47".  I suggest reviewing WP:GOOGLEHITS.  The previous contribution seems to both be arguing that we can accept an absence of sources because they are likely to be available, and that we can ignore WP:V because it is a policy that is only important for BLP.  And can we also ignore WP:NOT that says that we don't maintain coverage of routine sports events, and that we don't maintain indiscriminate information?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse the hyperbole - as I said, I recognized that they were not all significant results. I only meant for you to click on the search link and thumb through the first few pages of results to see that it includes some pretty significant results for a 16 year old event...I'd venture to say very significant if you try to consider the state of the internet in 1996. Thank you for directing me to WP:GOOGLEHITS, but I meant only to show that these results (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and probably many others, should more than indicate notability for a small stub like this. I certainly did not say that we should ignore WP:V for everything but BLPs, but rather that these claims must be judged on a sliding scale at which BLPs are the most restrictive (because potentially libelous information can be damaging to living persons), and articles like this, in which bad information can only have very minor negative consequences, are at the other (please review WP:BLP for more on that). I only brought this up because most of the sources are admittedly not from major publications, but the continuity between the many results (see list above) coupled with primary sources not listed (search for videos) should be enough sourcing for this type of article. I also implore you to look at the alternative to this kind of article, abominations like this: 2012 in UFC events. I fail to see what the community has to gain from changes like that. Zujua (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the first source listed.  MMATorch claims that they have been covering MMA since 1993, yet they didn't cover UFC 8 until 2006, and even then the article is by a volunteer "contributor" reviewing a DVD.  I doubt that this is considered a WP reliable source.  And is this DVD review 10 years after the match supposed to indicate "inherent notability" due the championship match of a top league, such as the Superbowl or Stanley Cup Finals so as to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT?  Just the opposite, it indicates that even within the so-called "walled garden" of MMA coverage, UFC 8 was insignificant at the time.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is a blog, the site lists the person as a "VIP blogger", and the essay makes no pretense to being anything but opinion.  It does however provide a lead that there is a possible source at a newspaper called El Nuevo Día.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The third source is from Bleacher Report.  According to the Wikipedia article, they didn't exist before 2006.  They have both paid and unpaid staff.  It would take research to find how Wikipedia generally determines the reliability of such a source; however, the article lists that it has only been read 950 times, and the article contains personal opinions of the author such as "I have no idea what he’s talking about."  Not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth and fifth sources are primary.  The Tapology site seems well-organized, but who are they?  There is no Wikipedia article.  They routinely list every UFC event.  The seventh link is epinions, obviously not a WP:RS, and reinforces the idea that UFC 8 is influenced by WP:N promotional activity.  The eighth link is a blog, stating, "Our writers and contributors are not paid staff members or employees, they are independent bloggers."  Not a WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ninth link is an article by the single-name author Rabi.  Does not appear to be WP:RS material.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As regards alternatives, what is wrong with http://mixedmartialarts.wikia.com/wiki/UFC_8 for routine UFC material and material of questionable reliability?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, I can't contest that the sources don't quite measure up to WP:V, but the high degree of continuity between the sources, the information in the article, and what clearly did happen by any reasonable stretch of the imagination (you can watch almost the entire thing on various parts of the internet if you're still unconvinced) suggests that these articles don't suffer from any degree of factual inaccuracy, which is what WP:V is designed to prevent. As for the alternative you mentioned, I was actually unaware of its existence. It does actually seem like a perfectly good alternative. However, I think the problem with the "well, the other guy will do it" mentality is that Wikipedia is the "other guy". It looks to be nearly copy-pasted from this article. I.e., if this article didn't exist, neither would that one. But I think we may be getting too heavy into lawyering at this point. So I pose the question again to you or anyone else who cares to respond: what is to be gained by deletion? It's an honest question as I'm actually willing to be convinced on this issue, because while I have used this kind of article as a helpful reference before, I can't say I'd be completely heartbroken if they were gone. Zujua (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to UFC  As per WP:What Wikipedia is NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper "...routine news reporting on things like...sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  WP:SPORTSEVENT adds "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats."  The only citation currently in the article is that there were "160,000 buys" from a source that asks, "Please take some time and sign our guestbook!"; which is not "well-sourced prose".  Given the absence of reliable citations, WP:V by itself is sufficient reason to delete this article, although primary sources can be reliable so this is not by itself a complete argument for deletion.  At the same time, when sourcing the article means starting from zero sources, it means nothing is lost to editors in the deletion of this article under WP:V.  The claim that there was a protest associated with this event, which as per WP:NRVE seems likely to be sourceable, does not mean that readers would also be interested in the UFC 8 sports event itself, which is another way of saying notability is not inherited.  I concur with the nominator that there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability or significance.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSEVENT has several problems that were raised earlier in this discussion, but which the previous !vote has not addressed.  This article says only that there was a "championship match" and a "Superfight championship", but does not identify the nature of the championship.  Seems like to be "a single game" establishing the "champion of a top league" similar to the SuperBowl, a sports writer would have identified more about the championship other than that it was won.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "...administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or being made using a new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that I'm a sock puppet, which I'm not. Are you planning to provide evidence? If not, please strike. If the closing admin wants to consider me to be an SPA, that's fine, I can't argue that I'm not a new user, obviously.CaSJer (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An indication that the previous comment is a comment on a contributor rather than a comment on a contribution is the first word, which is "you".  As per WP:Talk page guidelines#Good practices,

"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  WP:AGF and WP:BITE are also generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow. No evidence was presented that my vote was in bad faith other than that I'm new, and my contributions (although limited) aren't only on this article and its talk page.CaSJer (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ROUTINE states, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as...sports...are not sufficient basis for an article." 
  • WP:Notability (events) states, "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." 
  • Also, "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." 
  • "coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)."  In comparison, the "Noteworthy" section of the sports.yahoo news article states, "Tank Abbott wasn’t on the card, but that didn’t stop him from fighting. He got into a brawl in the stands..."
  • "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."
The Balloon boy hoax has been mentioned as a benchmark for the amount of coverage and ongoing attention needed for an event passing WP:EVENT.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carpet Bomb entire project space from orbit Once again we go around the "Not notable"/WP:NOT/WP:EVENT/WP:SPORTSEVENT/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER arguments for deleting/not deleting a MMA article. The only ones left in the space are ideological iconoclasts that are never going to change their minds and the hordes that can be easily roused whenever one of their precious articles gets threatened with deletion. A deletion follows with a deletion review, which follows with a backdoor attempt to get an article included after there was consensus to delete. Editors who are passionate about the topic have long since packed up their bindles and moved elsewhere as they've discovered that the amount of effort to raise articles to the level of quality that will endure on Wikipedia is too high for the amount of reward they get out of it. Editors who were trying to save content by proposing non-destructive merges of content get shouted down by the hordes of MMA enthusiasts who want "1 event, 1 Article". I've un-watched practically every MMA topic as I've washed my hands of the entire project space as the only return I got from trying to enforce civility and Wikipedia rules/policy/guidelines was continued and unabated incivility/harassment/abuse. I've stopped almost all my contributions to wikipedia for the simple reason that policing the MMA space was taking up 6 hours of my day and was affecting my health. Hasteur (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An May 2, 2012 MMATruth column from Angel Cordero states that UFC8 was important to the history of the sport, see link here and a a BleacherReport DVD Review dated December 22, 2010 by Joel Abraham, see link here states
"UFC 8 was significant in being the first to draw criticism, which included local politician Calvin McCard’s on-site protests. These protests sparked a nationwide movement against MMA in 1996, led by Arizona Senator John McCain, which temporarily pushed the sport underground in 1997."
So it seems there are sources that assert notability for UFC8 in the history of the sport. Shearonink (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those sources have been cited above, both have been identified as wp:unreliable blogs.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't been following all the posts but not all blogs are considered to be unreliable for Wikipedia sourcing. Shearonink (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the two are posted by user Zujua and are numbered 2 and 3 above.  Here are two comments posted in reply:

The second source is a blog, the site lists the person as a "VIP blogger", and the essay makes no pretense to being anything but opinion.  It does however provide a lead that there is a possible source at a newspaper called El Nuevo Día.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The third source is from Bleacher Report.  According to the Wikipedia article, they didn't exist before 2006.  They have both paid and unpaid staff.  It would take research to find how Wikipedia generally determines the reliability of such a source; however, the article lists that it has only been read 950 times, and the article contains personal opinions of the author such as "I have no idea what he’s talking about."  Not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A little digging provides some sourcing:
  1. "UFC 8: No small Frye - UFC - Yahoo! Sports". Yahoo! Sports. Sunnyvale, CA: Yahoo!. Retrieved 25 July 2012.
  2. "A look at how UFC became what it is today". calgaryherald.com. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 25 July 2012.
  3. "UFC owner reflects on key bouts". canada.com. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 25 July 2012.
The last source includes the claim that it had the highest attendance for the next 10 years. All together that seems like a fair place to start demonstrating notability --Natet/c 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first source has been previously discussed.  The last two sources are the same article written by Dave Deibert published in different places, and as per our notability guideline is considered to be one source.  The entire content regarding UFC 8 is, "the most since UFC 8 in 1996".  I would say that that is significant (non-trivial) coverage sufficient to write one encyclopedic sentence with the material.  But this is a WP:GNG argument, and there hasn't been much discussion here about whether or not this event passes WP:GNG and WP:N.  As per WP:N, WP:N only becomes relevant for a topic that "is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not."  There are higher bars here including WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:EVENT (requires coverage the equivalent of Balloon boy hoax), and WP:SPORTSEVENT (which editors are asserting this event has the inherent notability such as is due to championship events such as the Superbowl or the Stanley Cup Finals).  Unscintillating (talk) 11:33, 26 July 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.
  1. ^ http://mmapayout.com/2009/12/ufc-establishes-new-mark-for-ppv-buys-in-2009/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_8&oldid=1082348529"