Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 21
- 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 per below discussions although clean up maybe in order (Non-admin closure)--Chip123456 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- UFC 21 (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 sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance. Covered by routine Primary News sources only. Mtking (edits) 09:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not only is coverage on Yahoo and other sites apparently typical for kept events, but nom is also yet another out-of-process attempt to delete material that is actively under discussion at RFC and RFC/U, precluding and probably disrupting discussion there, and such attempts are at risk of continuance until they are recognized for the disruption they are causing to such discussion. The issue should be resolved by statements of concerns and compromise, not by random AFDs. Merge to 1999 in UFC events, a new spinout of 1999 in sports#Mixed martial arts, is also possible. JJB 13:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep How about trying to improve the article before just putting it up for deletion? Gamezero05 17:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Mtking has not performed a google news archive search or google book search as required by part D of WP:BEFORE. It states that before nominating an article for deletion, "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."
- So based on that, it is clear that Mtking did not search first before nominating this article. This is evidenced by the fact that I have found several sources from books and magazines from the google book search, and I have also found news articles and reviews of the UFC 21 event as a whole through the google news archive search.
- Based on this, I feel comfortable deeming this nomination for deletion as faulty. Gamezero05 20:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE is a guideline not a requirement. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is a guideline, and nothing is a requirement. So if you are only going to follow the guidelines you want to follow and ignore the others, then what is the point of following any guidelines at all? Once again, you try to interpret the rules to fit your own agenda. Classic Hasteur. Gamezero05 02:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does this article need to be cleaned up? Absolutely but I think deletion is premature. This event is notable for two reasons, 1) there were a number of rule changes that were introduced and are now followed by UFC events so this event set future precedent and 2) there was a championship bout. --Boston2austin (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league in MMA so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:54, 31 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.