Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMMAC 1

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 delete. Even without discarding the comments that do not have any rationale - and which have been canvassed off-wiki - consensus is clear here. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMMAC 1[edit]

If you came here because a plea made by the administrator of The Fight Lounge for its users to vote keep (Note, screenshots were taken of the forum thread since the administrator said he was deleting the tread), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable event from a non-notable promotion. Articles cite only a single source (from the promotion itself) and no significant coverage of the events can be found. TreyGeek (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Bjmullan (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable event? OMMAC is one of the biggest MMA shows in Europe. I have added more references from some of the biggest MMA websites in the world and can enter a whole lot more if necessary. A lot of significant coverage can be found if searched properly or if you know where to look. Please don't delete as I have spent a lot of time adding these articles to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All of these consist solely of reporting fight results, thus failing WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:EVENT and WP:JNN. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comments on advice from an admin of user who is indef blocked due to abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as from the guidelines within WP:EVENT (and this doesn't mean that the above vote and me are sockpuppets for anyone looking to score cheap points on this!) BigzMMA (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Err? Are you two sure you want to claim that WP:EVENT bolsters a Keep argument, when it explicitly states "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article?" Beyond that, WP:JNN is an essay, and doesn't actually propound valid grounds to retain an article. Ravenswing 21:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as from within the guidelines WP:EVENT and WP:GNG The events are important for mixed martial arts and it's fans. OMMAC is one of the biggest shows in Europe and many fighter use this promotion to gain entry to the UFC. Wikipedia should provide this information for people all of the world.--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also placed more sources, so the top comment from treys saying he couldn't find significant coverage should be void. Coverage from such sites as sherdog,mmajunkie,fighters only magazine, mirror.co.uk and of course The Fight Lounge is very significant--Fightloungemike (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)— Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all The articles consist of only fight results thus failing WP:ROUTINE and WP:N (which says "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage"). Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- well you may as well get rid of every ufc and boxing event then as they have the same sources...pathetic--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, duhhhh! Yes, certainly a lot of the individual sports events and "East Bogside Wombats 1927 lacrosse season" articles in here (probably around 95-96%) should have been removed years ago. What's your point? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, do you have a newsletter that I could subscribe to? Dennis Brown (talk)

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- well thought out and explained vote (rolls eyes). For every reason behind voting to delete, I have proved you wrong. Yet you seem to all be on a power trip. It should remain, and it will be terrible if you continue to vote delete just for the hell of it. Why delete one of the biggest events in Europe?--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, thats exactly what I thought when I first signed up to Wikipedia. These people definitely get a power trip off something about this. But like it or not, we do have to accept it, and even though they are actually wrong to, they can still make the delete vote, all we can do strengthen our side of the argument with more related Wiki Policies and use examples of where their examples would apply but never gets the majority agreement to delete (i.e. UFC 147) so that if anyone else reads this, they might vote keep based on how effectively we've shown how these events are notable. BigzMMA (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good points BigzMMA. Are these guys able to change their mind and their vote?--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - They can, but they rarely do, especially these exact people on this case that have voted 'delete', also have you thought about making a main page for the promotion? it may help a bit for those struggling to find sources on OMMAC events. BigzMMA (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I was going to do both a page for the promotion itself and for the events, exactly like what the UFC have. Decided to wait until this voting malarky, because I don't want to spend ages building it again, just for a bunch of morons vote delete again--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GNG. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [1] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Striking opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 00:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are cheating by deleting people who vote keep? That's fair isn't it?Fightloungemike (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what I said. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors should note that this is not a vote on the MMA organization, but on the individual events. The question being discussed isn't whether the organization is notable, but rather whether or not articles consisting only on fight results are notable. WP:N says they're not. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So why was the initial reason this was put up for debate being "non-notable event from a non-notable promotion" you lot are contradicting yourselves--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What part of "non-notable event" is unclear or contradictory to you? That claim has been very consistent in my posts. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine events for a lower-tier promotion. Does not pass WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is entirely flooded with these smaller, non-notable events. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for another ridiculous vote by someone who knows nothing about MMA--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not bludgeon if I'm just pointing out a fact. People are voting delete when they don't know about the subject they are voting for nor why the article in question is up for vote. This shouldn't have been put on this section.--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is, it was meant to help you, not criticize you. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Starwar1 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep as notable event and within rules --Redbaronfury (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Observation - Lots of new faces !voting... Dennis Brown (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the problem with that is?? As far as I can see, fans of MMA believe these are viable pages. Thank you to all that has so far voted keep--Fightloungemike (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, the same group of singlepurpose MMA deletion only accounts we see everywhere... --172.129.155.170 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I may have created my account to vote, but that doesn't mean my vote shouldn't count... --Redbaronfury (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable event from a notable promotion. 172.129.155.170 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 172.129.155.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Striking opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --London84tfl (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)as within rules and notable event— London84tfl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that London84tfl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Comment These votes are allowed, as anyone can vote so long as they use Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be aware of two things: Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and this is not a vote. Bjmullan (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as within rules and notable event--Brashleyholland (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

so the number of votes aren't important now? if not, what does it matter where the voters came from? At least the recent people who voted know something about MMA while the people who voted delete think MMA stands for 'My Mothers Aunt". OMMAC is a very notable event and promotion - one of the biggest in Europe that some of the best fighters in the world have fought for. People want to know about the history of the events and these pages will allow that. Original nomination stated that it was a non-notable event with no sources...well the pages now show that it is notable and has the same sources as what the UFC event pages have...therefore they should remain. simple as--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"what does it matter where the voters came from?" - You seem to have a complete disregard for the policies and guideline of this project. It matters a great deal and you and others can (and should) be blocked. Bjmullan (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this project?? Worms like yourself are making it hard for Wikipedia (which is supposedly a peoples encyclopedia) to have decent articles which people with certain interests gain the right information. You should be blocked for being an idiot.--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil. Calling people names can get someone blocked. It is fine to disagree, but lets all try to not be disagreeable, and just let the process work. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per What would Jesus do?. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 63.3.19.130 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
- Sockpuppet striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your !vote. As you have not expressed a coherent reason for keeping this article, it is likely that your viewpoint will be discarded as noise in this discussion Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or at most merge into a single article on the model of those on various science fiction conventions. As has been explained repeatedly, just because these events were widely viewed does not make each individual iteration worthy of its own article. The involvement of an s.p.a. like FightLounge, and his off-Wikipedia canvassing to swarm this discussion, are not the determining factors. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again I have to repeat myself. The UFC have articles for every event with the same sources as the ones I have provided in the OMMAC articles. All are very relevant and should remain on this site. I love wikipedia, I'm a big fan of the website and that of the jobs that the majority of editors do on here - deleting vandalism and lies - I'm just putting up articles of true events that are very relevant in mixed martial arts. That can't be wrong can it? I'm sorry for being abrupt to people earlier, but I can get easily disgruntled when people question my integrity and knowledge of MMA - I say it's a notable event and others disagree. I'm sorry, but if you say it's not notable then you are wrong I'm afraid. Please keep these articles on guys.--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Understandably, the creator of these articles is unfamiliar with relevant Wikipedia notability and verifiability guidelines, however expert he may or may not be in MMA. He claims that these matches meet the GNG, but let's review some elements of the GNG:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Only one of the independent sources listed does so - the other is simply match results debarred by WP:ROUTINE.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. These are webblogs, in effect; they are not newspapers or magazines. What evidence does the creator have to proffer that these sites are regarded, in the MMA world, as reliable?
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. This debars the outfit's own website, of course, and with only one other qualifying source at all ...
I am, by the bye, unimpressed with the creator's attempt to compare this outfit with the UFC. The UFC, of course, is a highly notable organization, with international broadcasts, national TV contracts, print magazines discussing its doings, and its matches discussed on TV shows and in daily newspapers. This is like suggesting that Conference South should have season articles because the Premier League does. Ravenswing 20:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By comparing OMMAC to a conference league is frankly disgusting and degrading. OMMAC features in MMA magazines sold around the world too - how do I know this - because I have wrote about them! You haven't--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, have you read any of the Policy/Practices/Convention documents here at wikipedia? I ask because you're all over the place in terms of trying to reasonably defend these articles. For example, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, a specific notability guideline to help get an idea of what is expected when trying to determine the suitability of the article for wikipedia. Please stop being abusive to other editors who are expressing their reasoned viewpoints about what to do with this article. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's your argument, FLM? Huh. Well, as it happens, this promotion you claim is so prominent has all of seven hits [2] on Google News UK. By contrast, UFC 144 - not UFC itself, just its most recent event - has over a thousand, while ironically enough, "Conference South" + football has 36. (Quite possibly Conference South fans might take issue with my comparing their league to an obscure martial arts promotion, and find the comparison disgusting and degrading.)

Of course, if you have evidence that these events have received significant writeups in MMA magazines, please feel free to provide citations for the same. Ravenswing 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really as I have this amount [3] so you are wrong. The UFC is far bigger than the UFC, I'm not disputing that - it's the biggest in the world. That wasn't the problem though was it? it was to do with sources and the OMMAC ones have the same as the UFC event ones. And I know more than you how many go on the internet to view the results as I can see the analytics on The Fight Lounge - and each event is in the thousands!!--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS invalidates your google hits qualification. Please provide independent reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the individual events. It would be notable if one of the boughts involved someone's ear being bitten off or some content that raised the individual article above standard coverage that could be found anywhere. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't paying attention, I'm afraid, FLM. You've got a straight Google search, which we very seldom use on Wikipedia. What I plugged in was a Google News search, far more oriented towards returning hits from legitimate news operations, as opposed to fanboy websites. Ravenswing 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec*6)Delete all What we have here is a "Cart before Horse" problem. We don't have a page for Olympian MMA Championships (only a CSD:A7), yet we have a full event listing for the bouts. Prove that the organization is appropriate for WP, and we might be able to do a list of the main card fights as a article. Hasteur (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, A page for OMMAC (the promotion) was supposed to be done by now, but I put it on hold after this stupid thing came up--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per Trey. Also a courtesy vote. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The above vote appears to be canvassed like almost all of the delete votes in this discussion. By the way, see WP:NOTAVOTE. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - For you to say my vote was canvassed, you'd have to provide reasonable evidence that someone asked me to vote the way I did. Well, where's your evidence? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These events fail every one of the following: WP:N, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:MMANOT. Given the canvassing both on and off of Wikipedia and the attempts to stack the votes, I don't envy the closing admin. Mdtemp (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the criteria in the WP:MMANOT Criteria supporting notability

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage.

Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable.

Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable.

Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

So from that we can see that OMMAC is a notable event and should be on here. I have placed sources from all over the world. It has over 5 events per year and numerous sanctioned fights.OMMAC has been going on since 2009 (before that it was called cage gladiators and was going since 2006). Many wll-known fighters have fought on an OMMAC show - including Terry Etim, Paul Sass, Tom Blackledge, Stefan Struve, John Maguire, Rob Sinclair, Andy Ogle, Mark Glover etc) All (barring Rob Sinclair) have or do fight for the UFC. I rest my case...it should stay on!--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you glossed over the first requirement of the essay. Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organization under discussion. Please stop cherry picking rationales that support your viewpoint and read the entirety of the policies and guidelines we're referencing as reasons for not keeping these articles. Hasteur (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a look at the very first post and see why the pages where nominated in the first place - "Non-notable event". I have proved that it is notable. You are now bringing up some other things. But you are wrong!--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails notability due to lack of significant and persistent coverage, has no reliable third party sources. The canvassing is getting annoying now. To all voters that came here from the site: Simply stating that it is notable and meets all the guidelines without stating why is pointless. This is not a vote. Also, to refute a few arguments, if you say it is growing really fast, we don't care about it until it meets notability guidelines. See WP:CRYSTAL. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well played, 63! It's without much merit (helping to remove non-notable things is like doing maintenance--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road FC), but I gotta hand it to you: well played indeed (and it is an SPA of sorts, true dat). Drmies (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 63, would you like to see your way out of this conversation without any serious investigation into your own SPA like behavior in regards to this topic without sanctions or restrictions? Please desist from casting the first stone. Disclosure: I've seen this topic area bounce up a few times through the various noticeboards, and had a hand in trying to negotiate a resolution to a dispute regarding the MMA Notability essay Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned on the UKMMA Awards AfD to the same charge, 63, your edit history since July of last year is also almost exclusively MMA-related AfDs. WP:BOOMERANG, I'm afraid. Ravenswing 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Take your pick of a number of policies and guidelines these fail : WP:N, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:MMAEVENT; none of those supporting retention have indicated how these articles meet these polices Mt king ^(edits) 11:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion because Treys had never heard of it - hence the non-notable promotion comment. I have since proved that it does pass the notability of an MMA show by providing sources from around the world, proof that highly ranked fighters take part in the event, that they put on many sanctioned fights a year and that it has been going since 2009 and as Cage Gladiator since 2006. That is why this series of events should remain on wikipedia. I have done what I was asked of and I shouldn't have to keep arguing with a bunch of people just wanting to cause trouble of something they know nothing about.Fightloungemike (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, have you noticed that pretty much only you and those from your website are claiming notability? Those who have been around Wikipedia for a while, who understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are all pointing to those guidelines saying the events themselves are non-notable and the articles aren't in a condition to be kept. I understand you think that the events are notable, I don't think anyone here doubts that you think the events are notable. The question becomes whether the events are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Continuing to debate after every delete !vote that the events are notable really serves no purpose, and it really does seems to be WP:BLUDGEON at this point. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, if you would look at any of the links that have been provided to you explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you would see that the word "notable," as we use it here, does not mean "I think it's important." As Wikipedia defines it, notability involves a subject being written about in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, independent sources. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies concerning the number of sanctioned fights a promotion has, the location of the servers hosting webblogs isn't relevant, and notability is not transferrable - a notable fighter appearing on a card does not make the sanctioning organization notable. One would think that given your insistence that You Know MMA and the rest of us don't - which is dead wrong, given that some of us have been following non-traditional combat arts since the heyday of the PKA, and compared to the likes of Benny Urquidez, Jerry Trimble and Thunder Thurman, the Silvas and Fabers of the world are johnny-come-latelies - you could wrap your head around the premise that we know Wikipedia policies and procedures, and you would be better off familiarizing yourself with them than in insisting you don't have to follow them. Ravenswing 17:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't mixed martial artists...what have they got to do with mma? nothing. I have given the right reasons why it is notable under wikipedia guidelines but you are failing to acknowledge them. Fightloungemike (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Treys, as I pointed out, what wikipedia say is acceptable for a notable promotion I have proved...you need to read WP:MMANOT and see the points in there..you started with non-notable promotion and using wikipedia's guidelines I have proven you were wrong and it should remain--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, please for the love of Jimbo indent your responses. Responding at the top level makes it difficult to figure out what edit is refuting what section. Hasteur (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... the notability of OMMAC itself isn't in question right now, since the organization has no article. If and when one is created, we'll revisit the question then. Beyond that, though, you're changing your tune, FLM. While WP:MMANOT is in fact a non-binding essay, if you believe we should follow its provisions, what about the one stating "Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article""? If you believe we should edit according to MMANOT's criteria, then it should follow that these individual event articles should never have been created ... right? Ravenswing 20:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - WP:MMAEVENT seems crystal clear. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as it they clearly meet WP:MMAVENT. No brainer on this one. Plus, all delete votes were clearly canvassed. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all delete votes were clearly canvassed - Perhaps you can expand this claim, provide diffs etc otherwise I suggest you strike it. Bjmullan (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He couldn't get enough !votes by canvasing, so he tried by sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 I struck his words for him, per outcome of that SPI. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.130) has already !voted on his AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:33, 17 March 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.