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 keep. causa sui (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Fighting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. lacks indepth coverage in 3rd party sources. many of the 8 gnews hits are from MWA and therefore not third party. All this company did was host 2 fighting events both of questionable notability (and currently under AfD). and also nothing in a major Australian news website [1]. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This needs to be added to mixed martial arts discussion page as well.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article in it's current form is a joke and should be deleted. However, a Google search suggests, to me, there are sources available to beef up the article. With those improvements I could fully support keeping the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES, please show evidence of actual indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay you linked to there. Unfortunately, from my experience the admin who will close out this discussion won't care about essays or other arguments you link to; they simply count up the keeps vs deletes and go from there. However, I have added some actual text to the article now (it's no longer a joke as I described it) including citing sources from the Brisbane Times and USA Today. This article and/or the event articles can have additional material based upon the fight cards, the background leading up to the cards (as always there were changes including the Australian commission forcing at least one change), and perhaps more details of the results of the fights. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a little harsh to call it a joke (sparse is more like it) but I agree it could do with some additional sources to improve the quality. Otherwise a promising up and coming organization which has already had a number of notable fighters on its two shows. jsmith006 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011
• Weak Keep Normally I'd say it's a no-brainer to delete the page of an organization that's only had 2 shows, but both of it's events got plenty of coverage. Most of the coverage was for the wrong reasons, but I can't separate the coverage of the events from the organization. Astudent0 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The two events hosted by this organization have also been nominated for deletion, but numerous references are available at that AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact FC 1, to justify their notability. Could the promotion's page and the separate pages for the two events be combined into a single article? Probably. But, AfD is not the best place to discuss page mergers and page deletion is not the best way to achieve that end. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment none of the above keep !votes have demonstrated actual examples of sufficient indepth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I look at the AfD for IFC-1, I see plenty of independent sources. I think Astudent has it right--the source articles blur the line between the events and the promotion, making it hard to delete either. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see LibStar's point. The two refs that could be considered reliable sources; the Brisbane Times and USA Today are not indepth. Careful reading of the Brisbane Times article has very little specific to the subject, lots of general "MMA in Australia" and lots of UFC comments, though. The USA Today article is short and just highlights the relative failure that the promotion was. Note that the Brisbane Times article was published before the Brisbane event and should be viewed as promotion rather than journalism. Fails WP:CORP. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2011 (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.