Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn

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 merge to K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in significant detail at reliable independent sources, and that the content should be merged with the 'Final' article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn[edit]

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

a sporting event that gets no coverage outside kickboxing sources. nothing in gnews and all google reveals is sources connected to kickboxing and listings. being on youtube or televised or having notable fighters does not grant automatic notability. fails WP:GNG. also nominating K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm for same reasons. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 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} 16:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm was part of the K-1 organizations series of regional events typically meant as part of the qualification process for the annual K-1 Grand Prix. Plenty of notable fighters such as Artur Kyshenko, Gago Drago, Jorgen Kruth Clifton Brown (who was also involved in a WMC - the highest ranked promotion in Muay Thai - world title fight). Deletion of this page would set a precedent for the removal of more K-1 pages all of which were created over two years to complete the overall picture of the worlds greatest ever kickboxing promotion. K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn while not full of the same level of participants is still an important development for kickboxing in Eastern Europe as many tournaments have been held in the Baltic. jsmith006 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2011

could you please evidence of third party sources to establish notability? Secondly WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Part of K-1 world wide regional tournaments, the elite kickboxing organization for last 20 years. Links from third party non kickboxing related Estonian online news site [1], from Estonian daily newspaper [2]. Link from third party non kickboxing related Swedish sports news [3]. Also should be noted, kickboxing related media covered the event from Japan to Poland, just to establish the world wide recognition of the events. Also in consideration should be taken the user's extreme prejudice about the subject, continuously nominating numerous articles over the last week.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but 3 third party sources for 2 articles is hardly significant coverage. WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. "kickboxing related media covered the event from Japan to Poland, just to establish the world wide recognition of the events" does not prove it is notable outside the kickboxing world, Wikipedia clearly requires significant 3rd party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry, you asked third party and i gave you third party. Feel like telling me which new articles you gonna nominate tomorrow, cmon you can tell, just for fun. I think you are at 25 total pages right now, or it might be more...Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Libstar - he just gave you "evidence of third party sources to establish notability?" and you are now saying that this is not enough evidence. How much is enough third party sources? 3? 5? 10? What is the point of providing evidence if you say its not good enough anyway? You still haven't given me any examples of sources that you think are good enough for kickboxing - it doesn't have to be K-1 it can be anything kickboxing event related. jsmith006 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2011

many articles have been deleted if they've had 1,2 or 4 sources. the depth and breadth of coverage is an important factor. I know you 2 are pushing very hard for a series of kickboxing events to be included in WP, bu you have to acknowledge that these series of articles are very weak for notability for Wikipedia as per WP:N and WP:GNG, a strong keep is reserved for when lots of sources of indepth third party sources can be found. this is not true here. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering PART of my question but can you please give me an example of what you think is a good kickboxing source? Perhaps you could mention an existing page on wikipedia - you could use MMA if that is too hard. In terms of us pushing hard, it's also obvious that you are pushing even harder to delete these pages as demonstrated by the huge wave of recent nominations, meaning that we are spending more time arguing with you than actually creating pages. Also the events we want to keep are all part of notable promotions IN THE WORLD OF KICKBOXING - I am not adding random organizations or amateur events from the local leisure centre but the top ones from across the world many involving multiple internationally regonised kickboxers, world title fights and grand prixs. All of these events have also been successful enough to have a series of events. jsmith006 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2011

notable in the wo

rld of kickboxing or any sport is not the same as notable in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your major claim of no hits in gnews is been relatively easy to debunk. You seem be be running out of that as well now, on your new deletions, started adding pages with only 2 hits in gnews. How about that of pushing hard to get pages deleted.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can have 5 or 10 gnews hits and not be notable and be deleted. Trivial mentions and non-independent sources don't count. Please see WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now GNews isn't an indicator of notability – strange you were using that argument in SuperLeague and SuperKombat that if it didn’t appear then it wasn’t notable proving that you don’t actually search very hard for evidence when nominating (at least on those pages). Now 2,3, 100 G News hits doesn’t matter because they are kickboxing resources and therefore not notable in terms of Wikipedia "Kickboxing is not notable" – meaning that you must think almost 100% of all kickboxing articles are not relevant (maybe Jean Claude Van Damme is okay but that’s only because he was in some movies). I'm really struggling to think what we can do because it seems there's some sort of invisible wall here that prevents any pages being created for this subject matter. jsmith006 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011

gnews is an indicator of notability, as it finds many print and online sources. if a very low count in gnews and nothing independent is found in google it is likely not to meet WP:GNG. you aretrying to hide the fact that this event gets very little independent coverage in an attempt to save this article. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Lipstar) are you trying to hide the fact that this is a notable event in kickboxing because it has not been in USA Today (the world is a lot bigger than America you know). Are you also trying to hide your bias against martial arts behind WP this and WP that because your not doing a very good job of it as displayed by your simply amazing number of deletion nominations over the past week - do you get some sort of award for 'Deletor of the Week'.jsmith006 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2011

Comment I'm not seeing significant coverage and it still seems like routine sports reporting to me. The event also had a definite lack of notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now you bringing it up that it had lack of notable fighters, over here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006 you guys said that notability could not be even established with notable fighters on card. You guys are something else...Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I mentioned it because an event having notable fighters is the argument you always use, although I don't buy it. I think your argument falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To Pap) while there aren't many notable fighters on the Tallinn event you have failed to acknowledge the K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm which has Clifton Brown, Artur Kyshenko, Gago Drago. You also fail to see that events are actually the most important thing for a promotion in kickboxing (or any other sport for that matter) and the contestants involved. Without any events or any fighters how can a martial arts event bee notable (and by the way I am talking about events with top fighters and K-1 as a whole). I know you are biased against events pages from our first SuperLeague discussion and you would get rid of the UFC pages. You also said you wouldn't try it with K-1 because of the amount of opposition it would get - leading me to believe this was due to the notablity of the organization and any associated events. However, I commend you for the fact you are willing to listen to arguments rather than leap in with a delete just because Libstar has (which is what some of his chums are doing - I'm expecting them soon). You also haven't seemed to notice the methods involved by Libsar (or are ignoring them) - do you think it is acceptable to target a large number of pages in this way without notifying the authors? Forget about wiki rules for a moment because we are human not robots and tell me in your heart of hearts do you think this is okay and do you think wikipedia is a good advert for new editors in sports such as kickboxing and mma. It's okay guys you can come and create 1 or 2 pages provided its in the New York Times or USA today. Btw I know you haven't nominated this page jsmith006 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2011

I didn't even notice the Stockholm nomination (I'll blame it on the late hour). As far as UFC articles, for example, go--I bow to the will of the majority, even when I think their interpretation of WP policy is wrong. My concern is that articles are being put up for AfD faster than I can do my due diligence on them. I also think it would be nice to satisfy this issue, one way or the other, before putting up more articles. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing (and making) the same arguments over and over. Papaursa (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Pap that these recent amount of nominations is absolutely bonkers - but I also have to say (yes once again) that you cannot use the same sources in kickboxing that you can in major sports and some sort of leeway must be allowed. I remember someone saying (not a kickboxing guy) that interpretation of the sources must depend on the popularity of the sport in question (sorry maybe someone can refresh or maybe all this debating is making me hallucinate and I must have imagined it). C'mon Pap surely you can't expect kickboxing in Europe to be covered by the New York Times - even boxing matches in Europe (aside from the Klitscho-Haye fight but prob cus Haye is such a douchebag - sorry Haye fans) aren't seen as big news in the States because it's not in America. I am also concerned that the chips seem to be stacked against the editors - I haven't seen any pages critising mass nominations and only 'it is civil to notify'. I honestly think that if the bigger kickboxing pages go (SuperLeague, SuperKombat, K-1 - not the Mohammed Ouali one that defo deserved deleting) then what's going to stop all of the kickboxing pages from going including fighter articles because big American newspapers aren't covering the sport. Then it's going to be MMA as well (which is already happening). Anyway, at least we agree on some things. Cheers. jsmith006 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2011

Also, while it's on my mind how come Sherdog is seen as an acceptable source for MMA while Headkicklegend and Liverkick are not for kickboxing? jsmith006 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2011

Actually, I've seen it debated whether or not sherdog is a reliable source, but it is the de facto source for MMA fighters' records. There are two other things that come to mind right now. First, according to WP:RS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." So feel free to use kickboxing or MMA magazines, not just internet sources. Second, it would help your case if the articles contained something besides just the results. Personally, I think world championship bouts (for top tier organizations) also help make a case for an event being notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciate this kinda discussion from you Papaursa.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in reliable, independent sources. Forums that are currently cited are do not qualify as such. I found a brief mention of the event here, but this mention of the event that does not even resemble an article is insufficient for notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regional Grand Prix held by K-1, the largest kickboxing org in the world. This makes it notable -- WölffReik (talk) 13:61, 20 July 2011

"the largest kickboxing org in the world" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. As someone who knows absolutely nothing about kickboxing specifically, I'm a little out gunned here. If the event was noteworthy because of its implications in a qualifying for a more important tournament, it belongs there, or merged with other qualifiers into one article like the 2010 NBA Playoffs. (If the NBA doesn't deserve a whole article for each round of the playoffs, I don't think anyone can argue kickboxing does) If the event didn't have implications in a more important tournament, and it wasn't a title match of some sort, it doesn't deserve an article. (This appears to be how the more mainstream sports work things out. Important tournaments get an article and the final event of the tournament gets its own articles in addition to that; everything else is looked up elsewhere online. That the current practice for the NFL, the NBA and the NHL.) (Damn MLB refusing me my clean sweep) --Djohns21 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On further inspection, this is also the standard in Tennis, and Golf, so it is also done for individual sports as well. --Djohns21 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reslisting comment These K-q1 listings have been some of the worst discussions I have seen recently. Folks, we need discussion of sources and references to guidelines, not ad hom attacks and unevidenced assertions of notability. Simple question from a potential closing admin, what are the sources, and are they any good? If someone could do some analysis on that it will resolve this nicely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by User:Djohns21. This event fails every part of WP:EVENT. If Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's certainly not a sports section. Which is not to say we shouldn't include articles on sports, sporting personalities and sporting events; with this in mind, I'd like to discuss common practice. I have participated in several of these kickboxing and MMA discussions, and I'm convinced we have an unusually large amount of coverage of these events relative to other team and individual sports. It's a rare team sport event which garners sufficient notability for its own article. In individual competitions, like golf or tennis, the tournament seems the basis of coverage, and a vast majority of those are still redlinks. As I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing, I don't see a similar fascination with individual boxing cards I see in this content area (K-1, MAX, It's Showtime, WAKO Euro, WAKO World, etc.). In the 113 cases boxing matches or cards are covered with their own page, I see significant (if sometimes incomplete) citation. I'll not claim an exhaustive search. This listed event doesn't by itself warrant mention because it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. In this case routine sports results coverage can't be used to assert notability. I'll grant Wikipedia should have coverage of these events, but coverage proportionate to their relative importance, and coverage proportionate by common practice. BusterD (talk) 12:41, 27 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.