Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Force Championship

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Force Championship[edit]

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

No significant coverage--everything is either fight results or material announcing upcoming events. Focus seems to be on amateur MMA and that's not usually considered notable at all.Mdtemp (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote--see my comment below.Mdtemp (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I found lots of videos, but very little print coverage about this organization and nothing significant and independent. The article states that it's for amateur MMA fighters and amateur MMA is generally considered "not notable". It seems like this could be in a good position to be notable, but I need to see better sources than fight promotion and results. Papaursa (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been significantly improved and I think it now has the sources to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these are reliable and notable sources. [1] [2] Dwanyewest (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article, particularly the sources, has been greatly improved since I first nominated this article.Mdtemp (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (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.