Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142

Add links
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 no consensus. This article seems to have more support than some of the other MMA articles which have been at AfD recently. However, since so many of the keep votes are either from SPA's, or feature arguments not grounded in policy, I can't close this with a consensus to keep the article. I would recommend starting an RfC to determine specifically where the line is between notable and non-notable MMA events, rather than bringing each individual one to their own AfD and getting inconsistent results. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 142[edit]

UFC 142 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. This event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mtking (edits) 07:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this is notable. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do see how this is notable 78.52.243.159 (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, every UFC event is notable in that they receive mainstream media attention and build up all over the world, millions watch around the world and thousands turn up to view the event in person, and the fighters themselves are considered the best in the world Da funkstizzle (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Da funkstizzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So does every NFL, MBA and soccer game but we don't have articles on routine sports events which is all this is. Mtking (edits) 21:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFL, MBA and soccer are not mixed martial arts, so why are you making the comparison? Furthermore MMA is not a routine sport, at least not for the fighters; fighters in the UFC will fight two or three times a year, four sometimes but very rarely, and the fights are concentrated at one event. For example, the state of a soccer league is made up of many separate games occurring every week at different stadiums and places. The comparison is invalid. Da funkstizzle (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I do not appreciate you immediately labelling me as a sockpuppet or a single purpose account. Da funkstizzle (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds familiar ..... Mtking (edits) 22:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have no problem at all showing that by providing the sources that show that it is still being written about. Mtking (edits) 07:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree MtKing, so please remove all of your nominations for deletion. UFC and Strikeforce events are clearly notable, even more so when compared to about a million other Wikipedia articles, the rationale to delete or merge them is flimsy and based on your over-zealous interpretation of a rule that has been adhered to. Da funkstizzle (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no trouble fiding articles that cites this event (other than routine coverage), as in this event had a Championship Fight, and this one put José Aldo on top of several P4P lists, I'm pretty sure that this event will be noticed in the future when José Aldo faces another oponent, I'm not saying that every MMA event should have an article, I'm just saying that this particular one have a lasting effect as José Aldo is the current UFC champion. Ricardo1701 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article passes GNG many times over. Moreover:
You cite WP:EFFECT which says "...Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline..." It seems notable in that such an event has great bearing on future events in terms of selection of fighters, future of participants, venues, and can be a catalyst for many other events of lasting significance. This event is part of a sequence of events that shape the future of the sport. Simply on those grounds, this article is likely notable.
You cite Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual Events. However, there are now dozens of distinct media references that are non-routine, covering this event.
You cite Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER. I don't see any of this applying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER DOES apply, it starts off and says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. the article makes NO attempt to demonstrate any such enduring notability, for all your dumping of 25 sources, all of them are dated in January or before, all sports events gain this type of routine coverage, each of this weekends games in the AFL (Aussie rules) will have had more spectators, larger TV viewer-ship and more news coverage this events, yet not a single one of them would qualify for an article under WP's current policies. Of course for the participators in any sports event the outcome is of great bearing on them personally, however that is not mean the event is of historical significance in the wider world, what is needed to show enduring notability is sources covering this event that have been written well after the event and they are just not there. Mtking (edits) 20:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You responded only to some of the matters I raised, and the argument put forth in your edits are weak and erroneous, I claim. The others, as usual, have been ignored.
In response: Articles themselves to do not need to attempt to demonstrate enduring notability. The topic itself does, which in this case, is self-evident, and evident for the exact reasons I stated above. That is one of the things you did not repond to.
Enduring notability as mentioned WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not specify how enduring notability is to be shown. The article does not need to show it. I claim for the above-mentioned reasons that it does, and the onus is upon you, as you wish to delete it on those grounds, to show why it does not have enduring notability. Again, my claim is that it has significant enduring notability in the same way as a court decision or an election in Botswana has. It is part of a sequence of events that greatly influences the future of the topic itself. Unlike the article on that homeless guy who could talk like a radio broadcaster, these events have enduring significance on future events. Show me how they do not.
You also did not respond to my objection to using AFL (Aussie rules), as it is simply the reverse of OTHERTHINGSEXIST. We must examine the article on its own merits.
There are many reasons to keep these articles. The reasons you provide for deletion, upon examination, do not hold a lot of water. Many are easily challenged, and many more are simply inapplicable.
With great respect to you, we are all supposed to have equal voice here at Wikipedia. By sheer volume and frequency, I am seeing your edits speaking with the voice of fifty. I see a response to every post at every thread across the whole MMA project. It seems a great deal like ownership. I am beginning to feel that this an unfair tactic of wikilawyering in an attempting to exhaust the opposition. Plus, your arguments really aren't strong enough to delete this articles. You AfDd them, then you must show why they are not fit. You have not done that, whereas I and others have shown why they are. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd seen been the target of as many personal attacks and sockpuppets as we've had at the MMA project, you'd have a better understanding of Mtking's actions. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've been following it. Mtking has been enormously patient. But it has no bearing on this AfD. It would, however, explain his omnipresence. He must feel like he's trying to stop a river. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment on you accusations relating to my tactics, as for proof that this event does not have Enduring notability, the absence of sources written more than a few days after the event demonstrates that, and if you disagree then all you need to do is to provide those sources. It is up to every article on WP to demonstrate its notability and in the case of a newsworthy event (such as this) to demonstrate it's Enduring notability. Mtking (edits) 07:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? "...Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction...."
Enduring? "...Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage..."
Relevance in the future? What happened during a past UFC event has direct relevance and significance to future events, participants, and spectators. That goes without saying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you can selectively quote guidelines all night, but WP Policy is clear "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and yes this subject gets it news coverage but none of that demonstrates any enduring notability. Mtking (edits) 09:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in existence, and you have AfDed it. The onus is on you to show that it does not have "enduring notability". I have defined "enduring notability", and claim that the event has that. Do you disagree with my definition? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:BURDEN the onus is on those who claim notability or add information.
That refers to content, not the existence of an article itself. I am trying to withdraw from endless debate. I just commented on my rationale for retaining the articles here: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Work on UFC pages.. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2012 in UFC events would be my preference. This event is already covered there. I also have concerns about this article and WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. This seems to be routine sports reporting and, quoting WP:EVENT, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I'd agree that there are articles more worthy of deletion, but that's not the criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an option indeed. My concern is that less than half of the 2012 events have yet to place. That article is going to get awfully crowded. 2012 in UFC events may not be large enough to accommodate all the events. It certainly seems cluttered and annoying to navigate now, and it's only April. It was created as an overview of the year, not a repository of 20 articles.
Perhaps a fresh attempt at determining whether or not these events are inherently notably is due. Without that, the likely outcome of some of events having articles, and the rest at 2012 in UFC events, plus the constant AfDs, is quite unsatisfactory to both sides of the dispute, and to visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The omnibus articles were an attempt at a fresh start based on the suggestions of several administrators. Part of the problem is the MMA fanboys who claim every MMA fighter and event is notable (and that other sports criteria don't apply to MMA)--there's really no compromising with them. At a couple of AfD discussions last year on kickboxing and MMA events Papaursa suggested a simple criteria--if there was a world championship at stake for a major promotion like K-1 or UFC the event was notable, otherwise it wasn't. That was in keeping with the notability requirements for athletes--must have competed at world championships or the Olympics. However, the proponents of keeping everything hated that idea so it never got anywhere. Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boy oh boy. I think we all feel the same way. The keeper camp really doesn't behave well sometimes, and it certainly has trouble presenting its case. :) Sometimes it seems that the keeper camp's strategy is "fight!" while the deleter camp's strategy is "sophistry and paperwork!". That's why I want out. Too bad about the 4 million a month. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Anna Frodesiak articulates much better than I could the numerous arguments to keep this article (and other UFC events) here and on her talk page. Glen 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Second the awesome work Anna has been doing. The sheer fact that this page is still receiving 40,000+ hits a month well after it is over deems it to be pretty notable in my eyes. Udar55 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hit count is not a policy based reason to keep an article that has no actual pose on the event it's self. Mtking (edits) 07:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We know. However, it is a significant factor is demonstrating enduring notability. I have addressed the cornerstones of your basis for this AfD. I have shown how this article has lasting, historical significance, and enduring notability.
You seem to care a great deal about policy and guidelines. But, these are ignored when they do not support your position, and cited as all-powerful law when they, even slightly, do. You cite WP:MMAEVENT as one of the reasons for deletion (see top of page). Has anyone noticed that it's just an essay? Not even a guideline. Yet you dismiss 4 million hits a month as inconsequential and irrelevant. What do you say about this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say anywhere on WP that clicks as reported by stats-classic.grok.se are a a guide to establishing notability ? Mtking (edits) 20:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a bureaucrat. I live in the real world, use common sense, and consider all factors. I also consider the guidelines you refer to. You are cherry picking those which only somewhat apply. There are many other guidelines which oppose your position.
Now, please tell me how you can dismiss 4 million monthly hits as a consideration because it is "not policy", while citing an essay (WP:MMAEVENT) as a consideration? Please respond to that. That seems like hypocrisy to me. And so does ignoring attention drawn to policies that support inclusion, while repeatedly pointing out policies that don't. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never once claimed MMAEVENT is policy or guideline, the policy and guidelines that are relevant are well known, and I am still waiting on my point that this article contains absolutely no prose on the actual event, the only thing that is included on the actual event are a list of fights and results, prize money details and details about what pop song the participators walked into there are no sources after the initial news cycle, there is no demonstrated enduring notability and the only thing you are using to demonstrate it is the WP page stats. Mtking (edits) 04:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You never once claimed MMAEVENT is policy or guideline. But you are using it as one of your rationale for deletion. You cite it at the top of the page. Your words. Your claim. What do you say about that?
You claim lack of prose. The background section contains several paragraphs of prose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mtking and TreyGeek are some sort of wikipedia power trip trying to ruin the collection of UFC articles and events. They created the stupid 2012 in UFC events articles and for some reason are trying to destroy the vastly preferred event structure. For those that say redirect to this pointless omnibus page citing content already existing, realize the content on the omnibus is largely incomplete and virtually unusable. You are all failing wikipedia. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been digging. This article clearly should remain for the following reasons:
  • You cite WP:EVENT as reason for deletion, which in fact supports the existence of the article.
  • There is nothing in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER you cite to support deletion.
  • WP:ROUTINE does not apply whatsoever here.
  • It passes WP:EFFECT because "...is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable..."
  • It passes Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects because of "...very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."
  • It passes WP:GEOSCOPE: "...have significant impact over a wide region...", international in this case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not fail, as you claim, WP:SPORTSEVENT because that only says "...Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to..." It says nothing about what's not notable, and is therefore not citable as grounds for this AfD.
  • WP:MMAEVENT does not apply because it is an essay.
These are the pillars of this whole campaign, and it is indeed a house of cards. I will dig into the past AfDs to see exactly what the defense put forth. My guess is that they just felt bullied and overwhelmed, and didn't actually read through the guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. this is a newsworthy event, but in common with most it is not worth of an Encyclopaedia entry. It article it's self has nothing other than results and a playlist on the actual event, it has nothing sourced to coverage after the initial news cycle. Know one has ever said why it is event is enclclopedic and the only arguments put forward for it's retention are that the the fanboys like it this way and it gets lots of click. Mtking (edits) 06:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have all said it. I, personally have cited numerous policies and guidelines showing why this article should rmain. Plus, we have all pointed out that GNG defines it as encyclopedic. You cite other guidelines trying to show how it is an exception. I have shown how it is not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's quite clear that MtKing is just on a witch hunt at this point. Mountains of valid policies, guidelines, and common sense have be presented all which support the existence of this article, yet he just wants to see it go away for some reason. In the interest of saving whatever credibility you still may have in some peoples' eyes, MtKing, do us a favor and go away. Pull lead (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Merge to 2012 in UFC events, per WP:RECENTISM. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect, with due respect to User:Anna Frodesiak contesting otherwise. WP:PERSISTENCE is demonstrated by enduring coverage in sources, not by subjective analysis. Despite Ann's protestations, everything listed in sources is routine sports coverage or event promotion (sometimes in RS). BusterD (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep don't let the vandal delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons above. Not going to pretend that the following is an argument (b/c I'm sure I can find a policy somewhere that says it's not) but, for this page, it's had 40563 views in 30 days and 281849 in 90 days.[1] Why not go after something like UFC 125 with 31230 views in 90 days, even though it's rated 130 in traffic on en?[2] --174.77.59.14 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that appears to be a lot of routine coverage. Meets the GNG handily. Merging would cause a lot of well-sourced material to be deleted. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, I'm claiming that WP:ROUTINE doesn't/shouldn't apply to things that see massive coverage including mainstream coverage. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the above standard, every Yankees game is notable enough for an article. Every Monday Night Football game is similarly deserving. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a good point. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but being a national/world event (rather than a local team) and the wide coverage seem different to me. As I mentioned elsewhere, Dr. Who episodes (for example) aren't really expected to cross the same bar. I'm not certain how something like this is different. Hobit (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • UFC events do blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is the best argument for keeping them as stand alone articles that I have heard throughout this entire process. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially by the eleven single purpose accounts which have entered a keep assertion in this procedure... BusterD (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. the Main event was a UFC Featherweight World Championship Fight, which meets the notability criteria in WP:SPORTSEVENT. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trok333 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep As far as the WP:GNG assertion, I contend that the inclusion of numerous reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of this event qualify this article for inclusion as a stand-alone piece. These sources, such as ESPN, ESPN DEPORTES, Generaccion.com, Jornal do Brasil, The Las Vegas Sun, etc. are in no way associated with the UFC or MMA in general, thus they are independent of the subject and qualify as WP:SECONDARY. Meeting these requirements, I fail to see how this article can be deleted under WP:GNG. In fact, it seems to me that the main editors pushing for this article to be deleted are WP:OVERZEALOUS.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You might not agree with my opinion on this subject, but that doesn't give you the right to strike it out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Try being civil, not name calling, and giving rationale for your vote.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:SPORTSEVENT WP:MMAEVENT: Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.
  1. There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISM
  2. This article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
  3. While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
  4. Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct place for this type of information and detail.
  5. I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
  6. There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
  7. There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.

Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how someone so admittedly new to Wikipedia (you've been here a week by your own admission on your page) knows so much about Wikipedia policy. Udar55 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, what difference does quoting WP:MMAEVENT make? It's an essay written by MtKing and TreyGeek, two editors who clearly have an agenda to delete every UFC event page.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's not much more to be said about this article. For me it falls completely under WP:COMMON. If, for some reason, this doesn't meet all of Wikipedia guidelines perfectly, I think it demonstrates a clear weakness in Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to mixed martial arts events. I would very much like to see a discussion in WP:MMANOT about possibly altering these notability guidelines. I follow a lot of sports and I find it very hard to fathom that certain events, such as tennis challenger series (please don't go on a crusade against them), are more notable than major MMA events. --Pat talk 16:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I totally agree that we need to have a log discussion with COMPROMISE on WP:MMANOT. However, Applying WP:COMMON it makes the most sense to redirect these pages to an Omnibus for the year, i mean how many of these are there in a year? you don't see Football or American football games covered like this, and MMA has certainly not reach their level of notability YET.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely agree with Pat, WP:MMANOT needs to be revisited as it is an essay put together by the two main editors seeking to delete individual articles. They use prior admin rulings concerning FUTURE events not yet held to justify their deletion of PAST events. Those same events that were originally deleted prior to the event occurring now have full articles of their own, being as the event has taken place and proved notable. AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hoorribly unconvincing articles to keep. 86.** IP (talk) 21:26, 24 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_142&oldid=1182485438"