Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact FC 1
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 keep. BigDom 08:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Impact FC 1[edit]
- Impact FC 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating related article Impact FC 2. hardly any third party coverage and nothing indepth. a few passing mention in gnews [1]. nothing in major Australian search engine trove [2] and nothing in a major Australian news website. [3]. completely lacking in coverage and in no way meets WP:GNG. being televised or having notable participants does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment LibStar, I think it is important to consider that martial arts events in general do not receive a great deal of press in newspapers of record like the NYTimes, etc. They do, however, receive write-ups by dedicated MMA news sites such as www.fighting.com, which is owned by AOL, and Sherdog, which is an ESPN affiliate. These sites do independent reporting, have editorial staff, and frequently receive press clearance to attend these events in that capacity. These are not fan created sites or blogs by non-experts. Failure to find Gnews hits doesn't mean that something is by definition not-notable. It is a starting point, not the final answer. Newspapers run stories that they think will appeal to readers, which means that non-traditional sports do not receive the same amount of coverage as traditional sports like football and baseball. It seems to me like your string of nominations of MMA and kickboxing articles are based on the idea that non-traditional sports should receive the kind of news coverage that traditional sports do (in non-niche publications), but this is a tautological argument. Once something receives that kind of coverage, it will likely no longer be characterized as non-traditional. I had suggested that references exist for this page in another Afd debate, but rather than encouraging me to find and add them, you quickly nominated the article for deletion. Why the rush to quickly remove so many martial-arts related articles? There are many editors who would be willing to work with you to improve these articles, for which notability is not as black and white as you are making in seem in your noms. I am happy to provide references for this page, but I wish you had done a more thorough job of searching for them yourself before nominating the article. I have nominated several MMA articles for deletion, so I am not advocating that everything be retained. I am advocating that you familiarize yourself with the types of secondary sources that are generally cited in articles of this type and recognized by the community of editors who have helped several such articles receive "good article" status. Not doing so, and continuing to nominate pages with the same argument of "no substantial coverage"
(and by the way, a failure to find third-party coverage is not grounds for deletion; secondary sources that allow information to be verified is sufficient)can give people the impression that you enjoy being adversarial rather than collegial. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- not thorough search? I searched 3 different means and found nothing. If I found substantial coverage I would not have nominated it. " a failure to find third-party coverage is not grounds for deletion" it definitely is, please read WP:N and WP:GNG. This may not be a mainstream sport but we don't lower the bar for notability because you want to. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was confusing "third-party coverage" for tertiary sources, which is why I was suggesting that secondary sources would be acceptable. You made no claim about the necessity for tertiary sources. Yes, you are correct that third-party coverage is necessary for notability. I have made the change to my previous post to correct for this misinterpretation. Let's at least agree that the notion of third-party coverage in secondary sources is a complex idea and jargony expression that is prone to misstatement. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’m not as big a fan of mma as kickboxing but this is a notable promotion in Australia and one of the bigger promotions outside of the USA – there are a large number of fighters who have had experience in the top organizations such as PRIDE, Strikeforce and the UFC, some of who have been top 10 ranked fighters – see Josh Barnett and Paul Daley who for whatever reason are fighting outside of the top events. I would suggest giving time to improve the article as opposed to deletion which I feel is harsh. I also feel that the removal of this page will affect other mma pages and this will detract from wikipedia’s usefulness. If this was an event in a back room in Alabama with few notable fighters I would agree with its deletion but Impact clearly have enough pull to attract good fighters to its cards in what is a growing MMA market in Australia. Remember just because an event is not held in the USA by the UFC does not mean it is not relevant or notable in the context of mma. Thanks.jsmith006 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2011
- Comment none of the above keep !votes provide any evidence of third party coverage of this event to meet WP:GNG. I could not find it covered in the Australian media. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent secondary sources provide coverage of both events and the subsequent issues with fighter pay. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From USAToday.com
- From MMAJunkie.com
- From Yahoo Sports
- From Cagepotato.com
- From MMAFighting.com of AOL Sports
- From Sherdog.com, an ESPN.com affiliate
- Comment thanks I would have to look at this closer, I just wish these kind of links were in the main article rather than poorly sources articles created in the first place. I'm not sure how third party MMA and sherdog.com is. Usatoday counts as a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that having the references in the article would be great, but certainly the same can be said for lots of other wiki pages. Not every article is going to be perfect. Tagging pages as needing additional references is a good way to attract the attention of people actively involved in maintaining them. Or, you could start a discussion on the page to see if others could come up with references that you might have missed. I think that part of the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of criticism in AfD discussions is because you are nominating a slew of pages for deletion without taking these steps, and in some cases, not informing the page creator when the page is up for deletion. These steps encourage people to improve pages. AfD discussions immediately make people defensive since the stakes are high (no one wants to see the result of their efforts disappear, particularly when they suspect that the nominator does not have the same familiarity with the subject matter or sources that frequently report on it). Discussions about notability are important, but nominating articles for deletion is not always the best way to encourage these discussions and achieve constructive results. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am still learning, but these are some of the lessons I have found helpful along the way. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think that part of the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of criticism in AfD discussions is because you are nominating a slew of pages for deletion without taking these steps" I have number of multiple searches for sources for each deletion. the criticism does not phase me, as these series of articles all have questionable notability (and lack third party sources) as sporting events. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the criticism doesn't phase you it just means that you nominate more pages. Almost every single deletion nomination in the martial arts section is down to you - what is that you find so threatening about martial arts Libstar and why are you refusing to notify the owners? jsmith006 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011
- Comment I also wish that the sources that are being mentioned in these AfD discussions were incorporated into the articles. I don't know who owns sherdog or is responsible for the content, so I don't know how independent a source it is, but I would say it's probably the premier website for MMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sherdog has its own staff of independent journalists and subject-matter experts that report on events happening around the globe. As you know, Sherdog's record of fight results is the de facto standard for every single MMA fighter page on Wikipedia. To interested parties, the names of the editorial team and contributors can be found here. To my knowledge, writers are independent of fighters and fight promotions. Their failure to be a mouthpiece for UFC brass has actually created quite a stir from time to time. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Another example how much time this user puts into looking for sources before nominating pages for deletion every day. Good job Buckeye, specially the ones from USA Today.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based upon the sourced found above. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of reliable sources found, although most seemed more focused on the contract and payment disputes than the fighting. Astudent0 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (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.