- SuperKombat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I have lots of issues with this close. It's particularly sloppy work, and it's worse coming from an administrator (User:HJ Mitchell) I generally admire and agree with. For the record, immediately after the close I told Harry in a friendly way I was coming to this process. The T-Day holiday gave me time to consider whether I wanted to proceed, and I do.
IMHO, consensus for deletion was clear, given the obvious sockpuppetry associated with the procedure, the poverty of argument on the keep side, and the gaming of the system with this particular AfD (and with the entire MMA/kickboxing group of AfDs in the last few months). In this case, the subject article was deleted by process here in July, plus two of the subsidiary event articles were deleted here and here. Yet these pages were recreated again in October. Note the page creator User:Minowafan was blocked for being a sockpuppet of process participant User:WölffReik (himself blocked for a time for socking), who clearly knew about the AfD outcomes, being a participant. These should have G4'd right away. Note Minowafan/WölffReik also created the subsidiary pages except for one, that created by an editor User:Cyperuspapyrus also blocked for socking. So we have shadiness in each of the pages from minute one.
As to the details of the AfD process under this discussion, note the comment by the nominator here. Note the November 6 revision history here. We have lots of sockpuppetry, as sysop User:MuZemike pointed out before the close. By the sysop's report, six of the eight keep !votes are tainted by use of more than one account. The arguments made by the eight keep !voters don't stand the test of guideline or policy. Given that Harry had been informed on a previous AfD about the rife socking (and reversed himelf), I was baffled by his overly optimistic closing statement in this well-gamed procedure.
After Harry's close, the procedure was edited by User:Johnymanos arc, himself a participant in at least one of the earlier processes. Harry failed to remove the AfD headings from all of the subsidiary pages, leaving some of that [1][2][3] to another likely sockpuppet, User:Rickr20 (certainly a SPA). Finally, Harry failed to put notices of the outcomes on any of the talk pages associated with the procedure. As I said before, sloppy work.
I have zero faith these promotion-oriented buzzing bees will go away the next time the pages are listed for deletion. While consensus here may not overturn the no consensus outcome, Harry has explaining to do. I also don't understand why User:WölffReik is allowed to edit anything, given the proven history of using multiple accounts to affect these procedures. BusterD (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't overturn, though I do find this a little tricky. I would suggest following Harry's ren-nom suggestion, not because of the arguments advanced at the AfD , but because of the sources Ol'Yeller points to on the talk page imply GNG may be met. I wonder if the sock activity was dealt with completely? Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- A decision's usually better than a compromise, if that's possible within our rules. However, there are good reasons why DRV will not normally fault a closer who calls "no consensus" on a fraught or contentious debate, not least because a call of "no consensus" gives you the latitude to renominate in early course. That's as good a remedy as a deletion review, to be honest. I wonder whether the technical errors with the close might be because of some kind of error with a closing script, perhaps; I wouldn't assume sloppiness on HJ Mitchell's part without eliminating other possibilities.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No assumption of sloppiness is necessary. Harry apparently never looked back. He didn't watchlist the close, and when the process was "vandalized", he didn't notice. If an admin is so dependent on closing scripts he or she doesn't double check the pagespace and talkspace afterwards, then that's pretty careless closing behavior, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Criteria supporting notability:-
- 1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage
- 2. Promotes a large number of events--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable
- 3. Has actively been in business for several years--the longer the organization has been around, the better
- 4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters
- 1. Coverage in 83 countries, all the events live on Eurosport.
- 2. Promoted 7 events in 2011, 6 in Romania and 1 - the final from Germany, 5 shows were World Grand Prix.
- 3. Yes, SuperKombat's mother is the well known organization Local Kombat (promoted events with K-1 and other European promotions from Croatia, Hungary, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic from 2003 to 2010). Same founder. LK was broadcasted by Fox Sports some events like K-1 Europe's GP in Bucharest - 2010, not only Eurosport.
- 4. Hesdy Gerges current It's showtime champion, Alexey Ignashov, Ben Edwards, Errol Zimmerman, Albert Kraus, Mighty Mo, Bob Sapp, Carter Williams, etc. all fought in the promotion in 2011. All are known from K-1.
- Therefore, what are some users trying to do? To destroy the kickboxing database while MMA has here all kind of obscure promotions pages? Not only from United States, but also from Europe like Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki with no important coverage and with no fighters not even from top 30 in the organisation. While SuperKombat had a lot of fighters from Top 16 this year, coverage in 83 countries, notable fights like the final tournament or Gerges-Verhoeven, shows in other countries too.
- Not to mention that some users were deleting important pages of the K-1 history. Take a look, there were redirected but the majority is missing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_K-1_events. Including the K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Bucharest - EVENT ON HD NET you can check commented by Schiavello and the Australian - which was the only World Grand Prix of K-1 in 2010 in Europe, considering in the end Amsterdam organised no show, so we had only an East Europe one. The same destroying (deleting) all the list of events here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Local_Kombat_events. Or deleting the events list of other notable European promotions. Shame! :( Rick Rick, 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I'd like to thank new User:Rickr20 (95 edits, all in MMA) for demonstrating exactly what we're dealing with in these MMA/kickboxing AfD processes. BusterD (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Strangely, that Papaursa user is editing MMA articles, but he is reporting for deletion kickboxing articles, destroying the database. And you support him! I only express my opinion, something is not right here.
- to S Marshall from BusterD: "Thanks for your comments (S Marshall) on the DRV. I've got nothing but respect for HJ, and I acknowledge the wisdom in yours and Rich's words. Can you explain why these pages weren't G4'd right away? The first three clearly meet the criteria. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
- Reply Thank you very much because you try to remain objective and you are not influenced. There is place for everybody here, including Papaursa who did great job regarding the whole martial arts or even BusterD who is like a policeman. But in this case I am not sure BusterD is right. It is your choice if you want wikipedia not to have a kickboxing database like it has MMA or boxing. Then, our work will end here. If not, we should be allowed even to recreate for example the K-1 lost events. Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickr20 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not want anything, only respect please our work as we respect your work. Especially when we came with arguments. I can't believe people deleted K-1 events. And really, if you want WIKIPEDIA only for you we will leave it. Me, Wolf and others (Dutchmen) who already left. You know what Jimmy Wales said. Rick
- Does not really make much sense to appeal a no-consensus close. The closer suggested a renomination after a while; the main thing to decide is how long to wait. Based on what's being said here, though, I wouldn't be surprised at continued lack of consensus. (myself, I don't have enough interest in the subject to try to figure out the merits.) DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that there is a clear consensus to delete if you exclude the rife gaming and socking. If this process gaming and socking is allowed to continue (and thus be accepted), then I agree lack of consensus will be a problem. Virtually everyone involved with page creation and keep !votes here is a known puppet, a socker, or a SPA. Is this how the pedia truly wants to handle such gaming the system? BusterD (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow renomination at AfD 2 months after a no consensus close. In the renomination, carefully compose a clear response to the reasons that no consensus was reached last time. Trust the closer to know how to discount SPAs; no need to semi-protect an AfD. Nothing to "overturn" here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put the article up for AfD because I thought it deserved a discussion after being recreated and I strongly feel the events fail notability. Lately there has been a rash of martial arts articles getting recreated shortly after being deleted and I would like to discourage this practice. I think putting it up again will lead to the same results--the sockpuppets, disruptive editors, and SPAs will tie things up with arguments that don't really bear on the issue. I hope that the editors involved received blocks. I think there was a consensus for deleting if you remove the questionable editors, but that's just my opinion. As far as comments about my views go, I have a clear record of voting to delete some events and keep others--it's a novel concept that isn't all or nothing (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Total Elimination 2003). The key for each event is whether it meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT and has reliable independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with DRV nominator BusterD (talk · contribs) that the discussion was plagued with sockpuppetry and disruptive participation. Discounting the participation by Mdtemp (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik/Archive) and discounting single-purpose accounts Mdtemp (talk · contribs), The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk · contribs), and Temporary for Bonaparte (talk · contribs), there were two "keep" votes remaining: Madison-chan (talk · contribs) and Umi1903 (talk · contribs).
Madison-chan wrote "weak keep" and her rationale seemed to be a "delete" vote: "Events don't seem all that notable, and almost all Ghits are unreliable". The following "some of the kickboxers appear to be notable" is a weak argument to keep the article and was rebutted by Papaursa (talk · contribs): "Having notable kickboxers doesn't make an event notable. An event needs to be long-term significant (see WP:SPORTSEVENT)." Umi1903 relied on a slippery slope argument: "This organization is probably the most eminent one in Europe for 2011. If you are tend to delete these, what's next? Delete all Kickboxing champions' articles, as well? Why are some people out here so much obsessed to wipe kickboxing articles, since we've got tones of UNREFERENCED articles from varied disciplines? Why!?" WP:OTHERSTUFF is also applicable here. Mdtemp (talk · contribs) countered Umi1903's argument: The fact that an organization created this year, one whose first event outside of Romanina is this weekend, is the preeminent kickboxing organization in Europe says a lot about the state of kickboxing right now. Feel free to put up those other unreferenced articles for AfD.
The "delete" votes were nearly uniform in invoking WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT to justify deletion. Owing to the strong policy-based arguments on the "delete" side, and the weak arguments on the "keep" side, I would have interpreted the consensus as "delete" based on the AfD discussion.However, as noted by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), the "delete" arguments did not analyze the sources mentioned by OlYeller21 (talk · contribs) on the talk page: Coverage from reliable sources
I'm seeing several hits in a Google News search and Google News Archive search. I can't read most of them but it indicates to me that a G4 may probably doesn't apply after reading through the arguments made at this article's previous AfD. OlYeller21Talktome 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It is possible that the subject(s) pass Wikipedia:Notability based on the non-English sources that editors have not reviewed. Because the discussion was defective, and because the socks tainted the discussion as noted by S Marshall (talk · contribs), a "no consensus" close is arguably justified.
Relist with a semi-protected AfD by the DRV closer to achieve consensus about whether the articles fail Wikipedia:Notability. Like SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I trust the closing admins will discount the arguments by the single-purpose accounts. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
