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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy. Individuals' definitions of what is or isn't notable don't apply here. WP:N applies. I'd have no objection to userfying this article for the purpose of merging some of its content to the omnibus article. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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)).

UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida (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 yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage, of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mtking ^(edits) 00:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mtking does not like UFC and I think we should all do what he or she says. Portillo (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. It contains only one non-MMA related source which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of "significant coverage" in sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article contains practically no prose and does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by default as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody[reply]
• Keep The existing pages for past UFC events have been of enough relevance to be included on Wikipedia for many years. Keep all, or keep none. the "2012 in UFC events" page is cluttered and infrequently updated (signed- User: Rissx)

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. Courier00 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every UFC event in human history that occurs is a significant sporting event. Obviously other people have sketchy agendas against the UFC. J Savage 666 (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Jsavage666 (talk) 2:16, May 7 2012— Jsavage666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete/Merge This is a second or third tier event for UFC. Articles fails multiple notability policies and especially fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge contents into omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge I don't see evidence that this article passes WP:EVENT or WP:ROUTINE. However, merging it into an omnibus UFC event article makes sense to me. Astudent0 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge I agree with the reasoning of Ravensfire and Astudent. Mdtemp (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 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.