Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Total Elimination 2003

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 no consensus. It's probably worth splitting these into separate AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Total Elimination 2003[edit]

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

another non notable sporting event. fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. 1 gnews hit. and google just reveals directory listings. also nominating:

Pride 26
Pride 25
Pride 24
Pride 23
Pride 22
Pride 21
Pride 20
Pride 19
Pride 18 LibStar (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These Events are probably not notable because they do not have enduring historical significance and do not meet the general notability guideline, also they don't have a significant lasting effect. Sehmeet singh Talk 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be some sources available for these (details @ WT:MMA#MMA_event_articles_up_for_deletion) but some may need translating or an English version may be harder to find. As the series and organisation was notable, it might be worth waiting a little to see if sources can be turned up for these by the MMA project.--Nate ^t/_c 16:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Where could we possibly find English-language coverage of these events? Oh, look! There was a full writeup of Pride Total Elimination 2003 in the November 2003 issue of Black Belt magazine: Link. I found that in 30 seconds on Google Books. So much for the nominator's due diligence... -208.81.148.194 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a good bit (in English) about the Overeem/Liddell fight from this event in Chuck Liddell's autobiography: Link. The online version doesn't include page numbers, but the relevant bit encompasses the last three pages of chapter 28. He calls it the "Middleweight Grand Prix", but it's the same event. -208.81.148.194 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that you might want to split all of these off into separate AFDs (if this isn't closed immediately due to faulty claims by the nom), since the coverage will likely vary considerably from event-to-event (though pretty much all will be written up in "Black Belt" to one degree or another). -208.81.148.194 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree the grouping these is a bad option as some may be notable and others not. --Nate ^t/_c 16:06, 3 August 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, Courcelles 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some, keep some I agree with the previous comments that lumping all these events into 1 AfD is a problem. I'd say some of the events aren't notable--18,20,21,22,24, and 26 just seem to be routine sports coverage about events with no significant impact. However, others are probably notable because they had world championship fights or should be merged (like this AfD's lead article) because they were part of a significant tournament. Papaursa (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree that lumping 10 distinct events into 1 AFD is a mistake. I think most, but not all, of them could be deleted as routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd suggest a withdrawal of nomination, then opening new processes against individual or smaller groups of nominees. Would make it easier to sort wheat from chaff. BusterD (talk) 15:53, 12 August 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.