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.

  • Valid (and completely invalid) arguments are made by both sides.
  • There is an unacceptable amount of ad hominem/personal attack comments in this debate, please cool it, all of you. You know who you are.
  • The idea to merge all these into a main article is something that should be explored further, that would resolve the issues with the notability of the individual events rather nicely.

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAMMA 9

[edit]
BAMMA 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable MMA event, no lasting historical significance, fails WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:ROUTINE Mtking (edits) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 10:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I got to say about that is LOL, you don't seriously think that everything that is notable must be on a paper like The New York Times, or a news programme like CNN? If that was the case, then most things on Wikipedia would be put on AfDs right now, what you are asking for is beyond impossible, especially in Britain, a country which our government, media and majority number of the public has slammed MMA more times than Rampage in slammed opponents in PRIDE for being 'barbaric'. I really do wish that the BBC, ITV, and Sky News teams covers MMA more in a good light, and hope that it will do soon, but until then the fact that the event is showing the biggest main event fight expected for UK MMA this year between Tom 'Kong' Watson and Jack 'Hammer' Marshman means that this event is already notable, and with the articles already out along with the articles that will definitely be released next week (which is the fight week) and after the event, no-one will question notability after this. This AfD, just like the many recently on MMA events, is nothing more than just the nominator's opinion that MMA events don't belong on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that many, many articles on Wikipedia don't pass this criteria and need to be deleted, but there are only so many hours in a day to research and delete them. They are getting created faster than they can be deleted. But the criteria at WP:GNG and subsets is pretty clear about what it takes to be "notable", thus eligible for inclusion if you bother to read them. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well, come to that, the MMA Wikiproject's opinion is that MMA event articles don't belong on Wikipedia, given the section of WP:MMANOT explicitly declaring individual events to not be notable.

That being said, let's assume your charge is true, and MMA events aren't covered in Britain because the British government, media and public uniformly hate them. So stipulated, so what? The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't get to say that the GNG doesn't count so long as a subject "deserves" an article. The answer to a lack of reliable, significant coverage isn't that we let a subject have an article anyway. The answer is that the subject doesn't qualify for an article. Ravenswing 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Wikiprojects' opinions are just that: a general, unofficial guideline. We all agree on that. Yet the persistance in asking for sources that comply with WP:GNG as if they had not been provided at all, when they already have at this very debate and your objections addressed (before the two comments above were made), is rather puzzling and strange. Athilea (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the fact that it meets no guidelines or policies is why it should be deleted. Mdtemp (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another invalid reason to keep. Mdtemp (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOlWUT!?! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another invalid reason to delete. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BAMMA events are not routine in itself: they are a set of out-of-ordinary championship fights, scheduled long in advance for an outstanding event well above ordinary or routinary bouts or matches, by a sports organization whose notability is beyond question. The best comparison would be between a regular NFL match and a given Superbowl game. This is also the reason why each and every BAMMA event, from its first edition to BAMMA 8, have received considerable attention and coverage from the media [2] [3] [4], enough to warrant their uncontested inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • User Dennis Brown accurately stated above, regarding the merits of the event when confronted with the requirements outlined at WP:GNG, "Once it gets multiple coverage in the New York Times, CNN, a well known biographer, ABC news, or at least a newspaper that isn't about only fighting, then a case would have been made". Such case exists. Leaving aside the somewhat unrealistic list of desired sources (which is clearly made merely for illustrative purposes), I'm surprised that nobody so far (not the advocators for this article's permanence, nor its detractors) has stumbled upon the many reliable, high profile and independent sources that do exist on this event.
  1. Yahoo! Sports: [5]
  2. Zimbio: [6]
  3. Opposing Views: [7]
  4. The Daily Mirror: [8]
  5. Luton Today: [9] (used uncontestedly as reliable source at a huge number of unrelated articles; see here)
  6. Dunstable Today: [10] (used uncontestedly as reliable source at many other unrelated articles; see here)
On top of that, I've been able to count no less than 15 different, unrelated, independent online magazines or specialized websites dedicated to this sport that grant significant coverage to the event, most of which could pass WP:WEB. While the reasoning for disregarding them could be debated (as they are proof of the high profile of this event among followers of this sport), the point becomes moot when independent and reliable sources as those detailed above are available. It is nevertheless a strong indication of this event's significance among those familiar with the subject, akin to the coverage given to a championship boxing match by that sport's specialized press.
  • I believe the statement made by user BigzMMA regarding Nate Marquardt's link to this event has been misinterpreted by other editors, who have insisted on the absence of this athlete as proof of unnotability (and this is both attributable to the ambivalence of such statement, and to the unfamiliarity with this sport of those who commented on it). That is a logical fallacy. Reversing the example given by one of said editors, the absence of the President at a Superbowl game does not make such event unnotable. As repeatedly shown above by the quality and quantity of reliable, independent sources, the notability of this event does not stem from the absence of this athlete: on the contrary, the fact that he was to take part in it is merely another indication (albeit not proof by itself) of the event's inherent notability (even tho he's ultimately absent from it due to unrelated circumstances that do no act in detriment of the event's high profile). Following the line of reasoning of the users who commented above on this particular issue, we would be able to say that BAMMA 9 is notable merely by the presence of other athletes who have confirmed their participation (i.e. Tom Watson, Jack Marshman, or Jason Jones, to name a few), whose own notability is beyond question. Notability is not inherited, and neither is unnotability.
  • Please take note that I don't endorse indiscriminate inclusion of MMA related articles, as some of the participants in this debate do (and at other MMA related AfD discussions, where lack of notability is a clear issue, like here). However, I do feel compelled to disagree with the opposite attitude of "nothing that is related to MMA is notable" that is so evident here, when we do have enough RS that show otherwise.
As a side note, and foreseeing the possibility that the good faith of my comment may be questioned by scrutinizing my edit's history, allow me to swear that I have never, ever, been involved in any way nor at any time with any martial arts related article, not under any other username nor as an anonymous editor. I only saw this AfD's entry at the log when nominating another article for the deletion process and got intrigued by it, so I tried to do my homework... whether I'm right or wrong. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.130) has already !voted in his AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I expected my comment to be taken with a pinch of salt for my very recent edit history, which is the reason why I said I was aware of it and tried to clear any doubts in that sense. What I didn't expect was to be so openly told that said fact is per se a negative factor when analysing my arguments themselves. This is specially true if being acussed of breaching WP:CIVIL at the same comment! However, I wish to make it very clear that I don't blame you, Ravenswing: been there and done that, many times, a long time ago. Guilty until proven innocent, but that's not your fault nor mine: the things that can be witnessed at AfD can surpass imagination, so that's the way it is. I understand and I accept it.
I am however somewhat baffled that the sources listed above are dismissed so quickly, and my knowledge of policies and guidelines elliptically put in question when in fact it was me who brought up WP:NOTINHERITED here in the first place. But let's stay focused. Regarding the arguments used to disregard the significance of the afforementioned sources.
  1. Those links that discuss the various fighters scheduled to attend, do so only in their role as participants of this event, not in their role as prominent MMA fighters. Not a single one of external articles linked above fails to mention BAMMA 9 as the reason why they are covered, and the main aspect discussed at them is the event itself first, and as result of it, the athlethes in question. It was me who said it first: if they event was not mentioned at all, or merely passingly, that would fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. However, this is clearly not the case.
  2. The link that "blatantly" prints "press release" is not from the BAMMA site, nor from any source primarily associated to this event; but from a well know, reliable and secondary source that has picked it, reviewed it, reprinted it and distributed it via its own website as part of their coverage of this event, along with several other announcements [11] [12]. It is the editor staff of Zimbio that has considered the event notable enough to do so, not its organizers or fans.
  3. I can't help but to observe the silence regarding the coverage given by other sources I've linked to, which gives the impression that they all fall under the two arguments above. Alas, this is not the case, as can be seen by examining them thoroughly. I also take note that other points I raised (i.e. notability established at other BAMMA events by significant coverage by sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated, the Nate Marquardt issue) have not been addressed.
I'd also wish to apologize for the "smear" above (small point aside, as WP:CIVIL is brought up by you, perhaps a choice of words on your part would have been in adviseable?). It would have been more accurate for me to say that, "second tier MMA related articles are questioned on a regular basis" (amazing all you can learn about a topic in mere four days of investigation, isn't it?) And of course nobody would openly say that: you don't see anyone running around at AfD debates screaming "Delete because I don't like it!" Yet it is the attitude that speaks for itself. I'm the first to say that, indeed, judging from my investgation, there are/have been many articles that deserve/d that fate, as they are/were nothing but fancruft. It is however the duty of everyone responsible to analyze case by case, with all the information and circumstances that surround it, and not let a blanket belief be your main guide. The fact that so far only you, of all participant at this debate, has taken the time to at least comment on the many reliable sources that exist seems to be an indication of this. I appreciate that, and I thank you for it, even if I believe your own arguments regarding said sources to be wrong. Athilea (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I'm happy to welcome a new editor who believes in doing research. I do have issues with your sources. The Yahoo article is from the contributor's network, so there's no indication of how reliable the source is. Zimbio is a press release (regardless of who issued it) so it's not reliable, Opposing views seemed to be the usual pre-fight coverage, the short Daily Mirror article was on Jack Marshman with a cursory mention of BAMMA 9, the Luton article was a daily training diary of one of the participants (hardly independent coverage), and the Dunstable "article" was a the same diary as the Luton one. Hence, IMO there still seems to be a lack of independent sources covering BAMMA 9. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm happy that someone has at least taken the time to review the sources I've provided with a constructive attitude, instead of shooting the messenger or refusing to discuss alltogether. I truly appreciate it and I thank you for that; and I concede that although said sources are good, they're not as perfect and uncontestable as to pass WP:RS without discussion. I tend to agree with you and Dennis Brown that the main flaw of this series of articles is that they tend to fall into WP:TOOSOON to receive actual attention and coverage, which would eventualy give them enough factic support to pass WP:GNG without these inconvenients. Such is the case of at least BAMMA 1 [13] and 6 [14]. The myriad of articles that consequently result are far easier to challenge on the grounds of WP:EVENT and WP:GNG.
Following an exchange with Dennis Brown, I have personally come to the conclusion that the best solution would be to at least temporarily merge all the events series into the main BAMMA article in order to compile the best available sources in summary style, leaving the possibility of eventually moving such content into a potential and unified List of BAMMA events that unequivocally passes WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. All the credit for this sensible idea goes to Dennis, and as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to work in order to see it come to fruition. That is, of course if both the proponents of the keep and delete alternatives are willing to assume such compromise. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the issue of the events notability, and as a WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT based !vote will likley ignored by the closing admin, if you think it should be kept you need to address how this article addresses the lasting historical significance of the event. Mtking (edits) 03:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help but to notice the sharp contrast between the 14 minutes it took you address the !vote above and your seemingly entire lack of interest in engaging in constructive debate for 9 days (as some of the proponents of the deletion of this article indeed have). Perhaps this is an indication that you will deign to do so now? Athilea (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FINALLY, someone who sees it as well. so Mtking, are you going to engage in properly sorting this out or continue to show yourself up like this? BigzMMA (talk) 16:30, 25 March 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.
More