This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mixed martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Mixed martial artsmixed martial arts articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why 7 wins

Why is 7 wins the starting point for the list. Wouldn't a number like 10 make more sense and have more significance? I'm not saying that it should be changed, I'm just wondering where the 7 wins requirement came from. Jeicex1 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. TylerBurden (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references

@HeinzMaster, your recent edit where you removed all fighters with less than 9 wins was confusing for me for a while, but then I realised it was in the best interest of the article to not make it too long and meandering. That said, would it be alright with you if I added the Sherdog and Tapology links for each fighter as references? I wonder why this has not been done yet, you seem like an active maintainer of this article so I thought I should ask you before making these changes. Matarisvan (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: This still needs to be done if you're up for it. Nswix (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 to 10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was a consensus against increasing the number of wins required for list inclusion from 7 to 10 (or any other larger number). The relevant content guideline instructs that any inclusion criteria should be, among other things, supported by reliable sources and not "original or arbitrary". Evidence was presented that recent reliable sources tend to use only 7 or even 3 wins. No evidence was presented for any larger number. Because consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, I must find consensus against the proposed change. Charcoal feather (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the proposed increase was rejected, there was also no consensus that the current 7-win criteria is adequate with no editor really advocating for it. A lower 3-win ESPN criterion was also proposed. Participants could start a request for comment to determine the optimal inclusion criteria in light of the evidence and the relevant policies and guidelines. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HeinzMaster and I agree the arbitrary number of seven wins no longer suits the current MMA landscape. @Dr. Chaotic votes for seven. Any other votes? Nswix (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vote for 7 actually. What I am saying is that we should KEEP the fighters are currently undefeated at 7-0 and as they lose, we remove them. Starting now we should not add any more unless they have over 10 wins, but keep those that are existing. I agree that 7 is a very random weird number, and I'm fine raising the standard to 10. Just stop removing the fighters that are already on the list with less than 10 wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chaotic (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Just leave it at ten. Not "ten, but also some with seven-ish until they lose". Lists change all the time. If the rule is ten, and you also think it should be ten, leave it at ten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswix (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: First, it's not clear to me why 7 or 10 are the options here. Per WP:LISTCRIT, list selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Do reliable sources support calling MMA artists undefeated at 7 wins? 10 wins? Some other number of wins? Second, if the list is going to be 10 or more wins, then per LISTCRIT, it should be 10, not 10 plus some 7s. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: voorts, remove the dispute from the list once you decide to answer it, not after you answer it. This article cites no sources, so ten is just as arbitrary a number as seven. The topic meets LISTN though, so let's see what LISTN-establishing sources say.

I, too, raised an eyebrow at seven. But it actually appears to have basis. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanonahoe: I thought I had, but apparently I never hit publish from quick edit. My bad. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the list was originally drafted it was 3 wins, this was early in the sport when not many people were competing, it went up to seven, which as the sport has grown, was still too many athletes and too much to manage. Ten is a good number, which every agrees upon, even the editor reverting my change. They simply don't want to lose the work they put in to those fighters with 7-9 wins, which defeats the purpose of changing the number.

Also, sources are an issue, and I'd be happy to get around to sourcing them, right after I know the edit isnt going to be reverted. Nswix (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten is a good number, which every agrees upon, even the editor reverting my change. WP:LISTCRIT is the relevant guideline in setting the scope of a stand-alone list. In the sources cited by @Snowmanonahoe, ESPN defines their list as "made up of current, active fighters who are unbeaten and have accrued at least three wins in a top MMA promotion". Do you know of other sources with criteria similar to ESPN's? As I noted in my reply to Snowman, SportyTell does not appear to be reliable. Sherdog.com and Fox aren't helpful because Sherdog appears to list every single undefeated fighter in UFC, which is narrower in scope than this list, and Fox (which was published in 2014) only lists the then-top ten. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a list of all the current undefeated fighters on this list. All I can find is the occasional round-up of "list of hottest prospects". This is all from their Sherdog profiles, which we've compiled over the years. Nswix (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SportyTell does not appear to be reliable. it is owned by Alony Media, which has a very iffy editorial policy: "Our writers do their very best at creating accurate information for our readers and they fact check, and test the info they publish to make sure it’s true and accurate. Either guides, informational or even just a funny articles with hilarious images. The team does its best to make the content on the best part possible." voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want up-to-date fight record internationally, Sherdog fighter profile will be the one for source for it is independent and reliable and also it is the source we based on for fighter fight records on their Wikipedia page as per Wikipedia MMA guidelines. The sources will serve to meet the GNG and LISTCRIT notability guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 02:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote "Support" or "Oppose" to change from 7 to 10 undefeated mixed martial artists @HeinzMaster, Dr. Chaotic, Nswix, Voorts, Snowmanonahoe, Rcpilot9, and Katanicx:

Support - MMA landscape has expanded in recent years thus more fighters have joined the sports and more fights are recorded. Plus 10 is a always a good number. Cassiopeia talk 02:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per my arguments above, based on WP:LISTCRIT, we should follow how reliable sources rank MMA fighters, not arbitrarily cut the list off at 10. The ESPN criterion, "current, active fighters who are unbeaten and have accrued at least three wins in a top MMA promotion", seems narrow enough so that it would prevent WP:CRUFT being added to the list. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sherdog is independent, reliable source and not a CRUFT. There are only 2 sources of fighter fight records at present in the world that hold all the the international fighters fight record Sherdog and Tapology and Wikipedia MMA vote use Sherdog for the fight records for MMA fighter in Wikipedia. By the way, ESPN back then didnt have MMA content as they dont have MMA reporters and buy content from Sherdog and only recent years they have their own content and reporters and Sherdog was there since day 1 of MMA history. Furthermore, we are not talking about ranking or last "X" wins in "Y" promotion here. The article is about undefeated fighters of "Z" fights. If you want we can vote for "top and 2nd tier promotions" which has already voted in Wikipedia MMA Project guidelines.
If you want to use more diff sources for the article which the info would be updated as other MMA media will only post it from time to time, then I suggest to article to be deleted for it does not serve the purposed. Cassiopeia talk 02:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that Sherdog is unreliable or cruft. Wikipedia has a guideline on what individual items should be included on a list, WP:LISTCRIT. That guideline says that a list should have a criterion (or rule) for determining what items should be on the list and what items should not. The rule must be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". Additionally, the guideline says that we should not create inclusion rules that are "original or arbitrary". 7 vs. 10 as a rule for what gets included in this list is an arbitrary determination that is not supported by reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts The article name is undefeated mma fighters which means even with 1 win and 0 defeat that is included. That says, too many fighters with the definition above in any promotions will be included which will be a long list and and that make the article fails guidelines that Wikipedia is not a directory. We here to discuss and agree the limitation entry of the list. That is the vote is for. For no sources will indicated what is the number (7 or 10 or 15 etc.) Here we suggest 10 undefeated win that the fighter needs to be in at least one win in tier 2 mma promotion and that can be stated in "Note" sub section to let the viewers know of the criteria of the list. Cassiopeia talk 02:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons I've already outlined throughout this. Though I should note we need refs, hopefully adding Sherdog link in notes next to athletes name will suffice. Nswix (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of you seem to understand what voorts (and I) are saying. The cutoff needs to be sourcable. There needs to be precedent in RSes for 10 wins being a typical definition of an undefeated MMA fighter. That isn't present. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isnt one at all. Never has been. This whole list is just a random bunch of athletes. Nswix (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowmanonahoe provided one. ESPN limits its list to current, active fighters who are unbeaten and have accrued at least three wins in a top MMA promotion – UFC, Bellator or PFL. Why wouldn't that be a good way to limit the size and scope of this list? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see a problem with it. If other articles like List of wealthiest Americans by net worth can exist with the arbitrary cut off of 25 members, why not this?

There's no point in just copying what some article from ESPN says verbatim. Might as well just send it to AFD. Nswix (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of that list is clear: This is a list of the wealthiest Americans ranked by net worth. It is based on an annual assessment of wealth and assets by Forbes and by data from the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The fact that it cuts off at an arbitrary 25 just means that the list should probably be expanded to include all 400. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're clipping off the hundreds of fighters with 1-0+ records at 10-0. Problem solved. Nswix (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is exactly the proposal for the vote is for. Fighters with 10 or more win with 0 wins who has fought at least 1 fight under tier 1 and teir 2 MMA promotion so the least will not become "a directory". A note or on the leas section can state the criteria. I dont see why this is cant be done. Cassiopeia talk 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chaotic This issue started between you and Nswix and I suggest you do join in the vote here. Cassiopeia talk 03:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care for the 1 win under a major promotion rule. This list would be more valid and important that way, but no one comes here for that. They come to see the undefeated fighters with the most wins. People like Valentin Benishev and Azamat Kerefov would be completely cut off. And as much I wish that inactive can crusher bum Benishev lost and wasn’t on the list, that’s not the point. When I first came to this page it wasn’t to see a list of all the UFC fighter I already know, it was too look at the other fighters from other promotions across the world that I may not have heard of. I vote the for limit to be raised to 10 wins and for nothing else to be changed. 10-0 and above is my final vote Dr. Chaotic (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close at 10-0 and at least one win in UFC, Bellator or PFL? Nswix (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HeinzMaster, Dr. Chaotic, Nswix, Voorts, Snowmanonahoe, Rcpilot9, and Katanicx:

I am with this, UFC, Bellator, KSW, Rizin, ACA, Oktagon, ONE at least. HeinzMaster (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support same as HeinMaster - for fighters with at least 1 fight under UFC, Bellator, KSW, Rizin, ACA, Oktagon and ONE with undefeated 10-0 records. Cassiopeia talk 01:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, oppose. Involved editors should not be closing controversial discussions. I think there should be an RfC here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All agreed except you on the proposal. I am not closing the discussion nor User:Nswix is. I will get not involved editor to close it where they have no edits nor in the discussion to close. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 23:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this discussion should be closed. The new proposal has been open for just over one day, and it suffers from the same concerns that I identified above. If there aren't any new arguments to be made, I think we are at an impasse and we should start an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion open more than 7 days and can be closed and an uninvolved editor in discussion who has never edited the page will closed the discussion. We hear your message of the discussion and it will up to the closing editor to decide and not any of us here who are involved. I am ok with the result whatever the closing editor decide as always. Have a good weekend and stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 00:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of an RfC or a close, I'm going to notify WikiProject Lists of this discussion and see if we can get some additional feedback on the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there seems to be weak consensus on increasing the minimum win amount as the criterion of inclusion, but no sufficient consensus nor references as to why the suggested cut-off number wouldn't be arbitrary, I'm relisting the discussion to possibly find grounds for the actual number. As the call for input from Voorts didn't yield comments, a RfC could come into question also. Ticelon (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ticelon (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, two months later, anyone want to close this? Nswix (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If others are okay with it, I can add this to WP:CR. @Cassiopeia, @Snowmanonahoe: any objections? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ loop in User:Ticelon and Nswix. I am ok with add this to CR. Cassiopeia talk 02:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very okay with adding it to CR. Ticelon (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds good. Nswix (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.