Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 28

28 April 2012

2012 in UFC events – Endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2012 in UFC events (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I want to appeal the quick close of this deletion request, it was closed by Scottywong who has closed lots of the UFC requests (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 154,‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 152) so is not impartial regarding the attempt my mtking to delete the UFC pages. it should have been left open for the full week to allow for all the UFC fans who do not like what wikipedia is doing to the UFC pages a chance to comment and then for a neutral person to decide what is right. ScottMMA (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Strong Delete It's quite clear that this page has turned into an epic failure, even the page creator TreyGeek wants to have nothing to do with it anymore. The page is now too long and cluttered. This is what happens when hasty decisions are made by a few people who know very little about the subject at hand, in addition, all individual UFC related articles should restored to the old format that worked, and the administator only editing block undone, wiki is supposed to be by the people, not the staff. Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Comment My desire to no longer be involved with the MMA article space or this article in particular has nothing to do with the state of the article. Rather, it is it the MMA fan community who attacks me, has outed me on multiple occasions and made off-wiki threats to track me down in real life that has cause me to want to leave the article space. It is not worth my sanity or safety to continue editing or being involved in this space. So, please do not use my "retirement" from the MMA article space as a reason or excuse to delete any articles. If you want to delete an article find a policy based reason. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Bad faith listing. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. Nothing mentioned above or in the procedure itself warrants overturning a proper closure. Two separate AfDs on this subject have both been closed as Speedy Keep within the last 30 days. No reason to doubt the good faith of either closing admin. Just because admin chose to close those procedures at variance with desired outcome is no reason for suggesting closer wasn't neutral on this process. BusterD (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC) comment It is rarely a good idea to do a speedy close on a controversial AfD -- the only result is to reopen the discussion here. I do not think this was a bad faith Deletion Review request--to object to a rapid closing is a reasonable thing to do. As for the actual topic, the decisions at the various AfDs connected with UFC lately have been inconsistent, with the fans of the subject sometimes succeeding in getting an individual article kept in opposition to the general standard for such articles in sports. We do have the right to make whatever exceptions we please, but inconsistency to the extent now present damages the reputation of the encyclopedia and is getting disruptive. I think we need several binding rfcs: first, on whether we should change the notability guideline for sports to accept articles on individual highest-level competitions where there are sufficient references to satisfy the GNG (which will be most such competitions, because of the intense press coverage of all popular sports). second; , in case we maintain the present rule, that only exception individual events will have such articles, whether this particular sport should be an exception. And third, if we do not change the general rule, and this sport is not accepted as an exception, how we should handle the material on the individual events. (FWIW, I have a divided mind on the first question--I have little interest in such articles, but I think they are of some permanent interest to those who do; on the second, I definitely do not think this sport should have increased coverage here over other sports, no matter how well organized its fans here may be, and, if it doesn't I support such merged articles as the one under discussion. But it is up to the general community, whether to accommodate those with a special interest. -- whether we should do so generally for special interests is a much broader question). DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Comment: The thrust of the listing is an assertion that the closer holds some bias because that closer has tended to disagree with User:ScottMMA's desired outcomes in other procedures. For that reason, I hold this is a bad faith listing. After all, two separate procedures have been closed as Speedy Keep in four weeks. It's not just this closer. I pretty much agree with the take on the broader issues. The community needs to have a discussion to resolve how best to move forward in this content area. The socking and meatpuppeting in these AfDs has made reasonable discussion difficult. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia coverage of UFC events is well-sourced and easy to read. Besides a bias against MMA or blatant deletionism, there is no reason to change the old format. Portillo (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Endorse speedy keep. Previous AfD was speedily closed as "no policy-based arguments for deletion" were presented. So, less than a month later, it is renominated--for no policy-based reasons (no, the essay WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Comment: As the closing admin, I don't have much to say. My closing statement speaks for itself. I have closed a bunch of the UFC AfD's lately, but only because a bunch of them were started around the same time, and I happened to be closing a lot of AfD's from that day. I was not targeting them for any reason. However, after seeing the level of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing that is going on (as evidenced by the "delete" votes at a DRV), I have been keeping a closer eye on this group of articles to ensure things don't get out of hand, and I will continue to do so. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 13:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Delete This new omnibus format is not user friendly. The old style was significantly easier to navigate, contained more information, and allowed you to quickly find information you were looking for without sifting through a behemoth of an article. When the ominbussing occurs you either end up with a gigantic 2012 in UFC events that is way to big to use, or if you break it down by Numbered events and FX, Fox, and Fuel TV, you lose the chronology of the events which is actually extremely important when following. I sort of understand the idea behind the omnibus, but I maintain that it is ultimately degrades the quality of wikipedia's information on the UFC and its events. It make work well in other subjects, but it just doesn't as far as the UFC is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.241.231 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Strong endorse. This was not actually a deletion request, but a proposal to break the group article up into a series of individual articles. It was therefore not appropriate to bring to AFD; it is simply a content dispute. The proposal was made as an effort to overturn the recently-demonstrated community consensus, established via several AFDs, to eliminate the individual articles. Since it simply reargued those discussions, it was not suitable either for AFD or for DRV. The suggestion that the closer of the first round of AFDs was not impartial is hopelessly groundless, especially in the absence of even a whiff of a reason to believe his reading of the community consensus was off-base. Wikipedia has more appropriate ways to resolve content disputes, which should not begin with such a pitched and confrontational stance. As for the substance, if the article is really an unmanageable behemoth, the problem rests with the overzealous fans who want to document events in unencyclopedic details; it is as though articles like 2008 Major League Baseball season included box scores for every game and summaries of hundreds of them. Bloated articles should be scaled down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Endorse the nomination was not an attempt to get the article deleted but rather to split the article into sub-articles. The AfD process is not the right forum for this kind of request. Hut 8.5 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC) It's DRV's role to see the deletion process is correctly followed. What we have here is a nomination that wasn't using the deletion process correctly, so we can only endorse. However, Scottywong is advised not to mistake the inevitable "endorse" outcome here as approval for him to appoint himself the UFC-related article police, as threatened above. Scottywong, if you're seeing puppetry and bad faith everywhere, then that's always a sign that it's time for you to step back and draw other admins' attention to the problem instead of dealing with it personally.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC) I understand it's a sensitive situation, but there really is a coordinated, off-wiki effort to push an agenda with these articles. I have no personal interest in MMA or UFC at all, and I honestly couldn't care less if we had a separate article on every punch thrown at every UFC event (ok, well maybe that's not true). As someone who is familiar with the situation and the players at this point, I'm just keeping an eye on it from a distance. If you see me crossing a line, please be sure to let me know. (No threats intended in my original comment, btw.) ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC) The reason Scottywong is seeing puppetry and bad-faith everywhere is because it is everywhere in this mess of an area. We've already had clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing and socking on the AfDs. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC) And the fact that other admins agree about that gives me more confidence that it's genuinely happening. My point is that where one admin does a lot of work in one topic area, this can lead to the appearance of a crusade or witch hunt and the consequent drama, accusations, etc., all of which are unnecessary—if you see an emergent problem, ask another admin to help.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Endorse If this is, at the core, a merge-vs-split editing argument being pointedly pursued at AfD, which it appears on the face of it to be, it's to my mind disruptive, and eligible for WP:SK 2(d), or close enough. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, though. --joe deckertalk to me 08:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment The thing is that over the years many many MMA fans have built up the articles on Wikipedia to be really awesome sources of fight and event information. We've been using the single article format for years and have really done great work so far with it. All of a sudden a couple editors emerge who admittedly don't care at all about MMA and they want to turn everything upside for no apparent reason. That is why there is all this backlash. There is no legit reason why the single article structure isn't just fine and that is what the overwhelming majority of contibutors and users want to see/use. Pull lead (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC) but neither the MMA fans do not get to decide the issue, but the whole community, and either deletion review or an rfc on the matter is where you will get the broadest participation. there is almost nothing at Wikipedia that everybody is interested in, and the community as a whole has a considerable, but not unlimited. tolerance for different fields of interest. My personal feeling is that the fans of this sport have gone over the limit of what the community will accept. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC) So because of an empassioned campaign, you automatically side with the opposition because of a personal issue with the way they rallied support? The "coordinated effort beyond the scope of wikipedia" is largely overstated and exaggerated anyway. We are taking it personally because we've put a ton of time and effort for years into creating the history of MMA in the best possible format on Wikipedia and have been allowed to do so unimpeded for years. Then all of a sudden people that don't even care about MMA barge in acting like a bunch of Wikipedia lawyers citing all these things that frankly no one that uses the MMA articles even care about. The bottom line is that we want an easy to use, easy to navigate, perfectly chronological event history that contains information beyond just who fought and the results. We've been compiling this well within the guidelines of what Wikipedia permits and no one had an issues for the past several years. You wouldn't consider it an affront when someone who spends the majority of his time editing America's Top Model pages rolls in and starts nominating tons of articles for deletion claiming they aren't relevant. A bit of hypocrisy, no? This reaction has been a response to a few guys turning everything we've worked on and rely on, the way we best can format it, around for no valid purpose. What did you think was going to happen? Pull lead (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Pull lead, I totally agree with you, and I might know why this actually happened, this came out of the result of a AfD for UFC 140 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination)), in which the closing admin, User:Beeblebrox, 'decided' to result the AfD. Despite the overwhelming majority Keep votes, He decided to merge ALL UFC events into pages as his result, and the same admin has been keeping contact with TreyGeek since before that AfD and has been on a mission to 'honour' that 'result', and because of this I suspect possible foul play (if no evidence can be found on Wikipedia of any sort of interaction that could of lead to the 2012 in UFC events well before the result of the UFC 140 AfD, then perhaps off Wikipedia?). If anyone looks into the talk pages of users like Mtking, TreyGeek, and User:Beeblebrox, you will find that there is a strong enough connection to clearly see that User:Beeblebrox was the WRONG admin to close the AfD that has resulted in the mess called 2012 in UFC events due to the closeness to the users on the one side of the argument and might possibly felt the same way, hence he would decide on any result other than what was as clear as day on the AfD. For anyone curious about what I am saying, PLEASE, look this up, check their user pages and talk pages, there is, and has been a strong connection between these users since before this 'decision' to make a 'Year in' article. There is clearly something not right about this and I want an investigation on this, largely because a AfD was given a bad decision from an admin who was not neutral of the topic, who clearly has a side and choose to stick with it than go by what the consensus was and now it has resulted in this! 86.149.145.7 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC) What we have here is a war between the lumpers and the splitters. Some editors like big, combined articles like 2012 in UFC events, and other editors like small, separate articles. The fashion in Wikipedia at the moment is towards merging things into large, long articles on the basis that it's easier for users to find content that way. Historically, the fashion used to be to divide things up into lots of little topics because those are easier for editors to write. Personalising it and making it about Mtking or Beeblebrox isn't really very fair. A better question is who should win: the people who seek consistency across topic areas, or the people who actually write content in this topic area? Personally, I tend to fall on the Editors Matter side of it and I don't see why a large-scale demerger would be such a big problem, but reasonable people can disagree on things like this.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Honestly at this point I've lost my faith in the process and I've accepted the fact that I've wasted my time over the years here. My donation money from now on will be better spend somewhere else that isn't ruled by a roving gang of witch hunters. Since you guys sought mandatory to create this omnibus, I hope you at least will keep it as updated as we did because you are going to see a lot less MMA traffic now. See ya. Pull lead (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC) If you look, the page is already ridiculously long and disjointed. It's not even May yet. Even separating this into years will result in literally hundreds of fights and the ref list is already at 101. I'm still unclear on why the decision was made (especially in the face of many, many objections for deletion from fans and editors alike), except some obscure referencing that really holds no weight in merging these pages. There is also much lost information by this merged page since it cannot visually accommodate all the information found in individual articles. I only come to Wiki for UFC info (which is how by accident I found out about all this, apart from any other Wiki edits I've done), no where else has the pages been informative and collective. Is the decision really in the hands of rogue editors with no oversight? Perhaps then, if it's a single one or two clamoring for a specific way, the discussions aren't pertinent and they should remove themselves from this discussion in the interest of fairness.Seola1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) We must decide this now! What is also most confusing is that the users who claim that this Omnibus page is better than the separate articles that has been used for years have said that the reason the single event pages don't work is because, in their words, 'they are poorly sourced, covered only by MMA websites and there are not many independent websites covering them'. Well ain't the sort of reason why you wouldn't have the information in general on Wikipedia at all, right? Then why is it that just because all these events are on just one page, with ALL the same 'poorly sourced' information and references they said that the pages should be deleted for are somehow the same reason why a Omnibus page works and they would defend those same sources? I don't care how ignorant you are, you can't possibly expect it both way in which you won't have single pages because of the the location of the references, but yet use those same sources along with many more similar sources to decide that it then becomes notable. Because what is now being said is that it is okay to have poorly sourced information/references to back up a page as long as there are plenty of them to do so! They are still the same sources, from the same website covering the same event in the same way, what difference does it make whether it is on a page that is just about the event the article is covering or a page where it is covering only a fraction of where up to 30 EVENTS are being mentioned? So we all have to make up our minds right now, do we accepts all these types of sources of regardless of whether it is on just a page covering only the event it is covering and/or the Omnibus page we got, or do we just decide that these sources have no place on Wikipedia at all, in which we delete ALL pages relating to upcoming and past UFC events? 109.151.225.151 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Endorse I'm certainly not saying that the Omnibus as it stands is perfect, but it is the best solution to the issues brought up by AfD's,I'd like to see some of these editors that have created the single articles and are so opposed to the Omnibus do some work on the omnibus and on the events that may warrant a single article. I don't think anyone would be oppossed to reformatting the Omnibus, having quarterly Omnibus's maybe, something that gives the editors a chance to get back some of what they want.I have also asserted that I will help edit any stand alone article and defend it if someone can find sources that meet WP:MMAEVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT.(Disclosure I am in favor of deleting any individual article that does not have enough notability to have a separate page and have nominated UFC events to AfD)Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Endorse - AfD was closed correctly and properly. I am not seeing anything actionable in the DRV nomination. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Scottywong is sufficiently removed from the subject matter and there is no indication of anything improper in the actions taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Endorse Scottywong's closure was appropriate, closure of other MMA discussions does not mean he has to withdraw himself from closing another. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I have also just blocked one of the MMA editors for disrupting Wikipedia (via vandalism) to make a point. What those who object to the omnibus format need to do is make the individual event articles show notability - and I don't mean by saying "Oh, every UFC event is notable". This isn't a difficult concept. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC) I have the solution! I have written to Jimbo Wales on his talkpage for help as this whole thing has gotten too far, and User:Wikid77 has come up with the best solution. It is on the talkpage but for those who would point blank refuse to go on it, I will bring what he said on here - "Seems reasonable to have 30 UFC-event articles per year: The long-term tradition appears to be workable, to have separate articles for each of the UFC events, especially considering there are only about 30 major events per year. Obviously, there will be enough news sources for each sporting event, and with only 30 per year, then later reports will often re-mention the earlier events to strengthen their notability for separate articles. The added yearly article ("2012 in UFC events") would be workable if kept condensed, with links to the larger, separate UFC-event articles. This situation is similar to hurricane articles, where some people have questioned the notability of each storm, and if a hurricane stayed out at sea (and only a few islands or ships were affected), then deletionists have tried to ax the separate pages, in favor of the yearly article, such as "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" listing 28 tropical storms and 15 hurricanes for year 2005, where the major storms included Hurricane Katrina (August), Hurricane Rita (September), and Hurricane Wilma (October), but also the July storms Hurricane Emily (2005) and Hurricane Dennis were considered to be powerful storms. Try not to be upset about people being obsessed with deleting articles, but also remember that having a yearly article (such as "2012 in UFC events") does not mean the separate UFC-event articles must be deleted. Both the separate and yearly UFC articles can be kept, as with each year's hurricane articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)" So as you can see, maybe the best solution isn't to have one or the other, but to have BOTH on here, the separate pages AND the Omnibus pages on Wikipedia, that way everyone is satisfied, all the right boxes for the topic is ticked, and the information is just as easily accessible for those who are looking for this information as before. I think somewhere down the lines people have forgotten that people aren't interested in Wikipedia for debating how the information is presented (if its present at all) but to find what they are looking for and read it, and thats what matters. For this reason I am now going to change my vote to Keep both separate event pages AND Omnibus event pages, and I hope you all do the same! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Comment I would have no objection to having the single articles remain and the omnibus exist as well. I suppose that would give people the option to utilize whichever system they prefer. I personally think the omnibus is way too cumbersome and I don't like it so I would only use the single page articles, but I also would have no objection to an omnibus coexisting. Pull lead (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC) If this is the result of the review, then the first thing we ALL need to do is call a truce between each other, in which we stop the bickering, the insults and end all AfDs on the separate and omnibus UFC pages because it has been going nowhere and we need a realistic solution that works for all. We will then need to discuss removing the merge links from the UFC events on the 2012 in UFC events such as UFC 152, and then we should have directory links on the separate pages to the 'Year in' omnibus pages and vice versa. Then all users will work to regularly update both the separate pages and omnibus pages from then on so that neither page would be without the same information. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to do. In the end of the day, Wikipedia is about finding information you want/need to find, and Wikipedia is the best place to find what your looking for. For the MMA community, Wikipedia has been a vital source to finding out fight event results from the night before if they weren't able to watch the event. For people who edit on Wikipedia all the time, I can understand you have policies that you must follow but at the same time why does it have to be a 'our system or no system' approach to this? It's like I pointed out before the references for the 2012 in UFC events page are virtually identical to that of the separate pages, and when you think about the fact that its is only the 5th month of the year and there are over 100 references on the omnibus page, largely from MMA websites, then how is it much different to have separate pages with only a handful of the same references directly for the same event? You must remember as well it doesn't matter how it is presented, it is always going to be viewed by certain certain people, which in this case is the UFC/MMA community. This is why I want you guys as well to agree that keeping both the omnibus pages and the separate pages is the best solution and I want you to back me on that! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.