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. Arguments on both sides of the debate ranged from weak to strong. In the end however, those in favor of keeping demonstrated that there is significant coverage of these events in reliable sources, and this was not adequately refuted. This close implies no prejudice towards a possible merge of some sort. Jujutacular (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProElite 1 (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The event fails WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. TreyGeek (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

ProElite 2 (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ProElite 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all These events all lack signficant coverage and fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as these are major events associated with a major promotion with major fighters. Events that occur every few months are not "routine". Moreover, because they could reasonable be merged and redirected to the ProElite article, there is no reason why we would have to delete them. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of your arguments support deletion, but I won't go into that. Can you provide sources to show that the events pass WP:GNG? --TreyGeek (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol what? By that logic then your nomination must actually support keeping, right? And of course I can. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all three articles in some manner or other, because they do indeed seem to pass the WP:GNG in the sense that 1) they are covered in news articles that list more than just results, which means these articles on Wikipedia can be expanded; 2) they involve champion caliber fighters from UFC; 3) the events were either televised or streamed on a major cable network or MMA website; 4) these events occurred months apart and so are not routine; 5) the first event of any promotion is a sign of notability; 5) other events include tournament bouts; etc. I could understand an argument to have a list of events like we do for Bellator, but I do not see any real reason to redlink these. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as they are All pages meet GNG as they all received a high number of articles covering each event and despite the few months apart, you can see the gaps between each event are shortening to the point where they might hold an event once every two months at the latest. Their first event was in August 2011, their second was in November 2011 and their third is happening two days from now (January 2012). If you can see the gap closing between the events (it was three months between ProElite 1 and 2, whilst it is just two months between ProElite 2 and 3), you'd notice this is one promotion to leave alone unless they really don't make events more regular, and even then each event has had enough articles on them to have them remain on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These fail to meet WP:GNG since all of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The first events of a new MMA organization are not automatically notable. These events decided no championships and received only routine sports coverage, so they also fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Papaursa, The main event of ProElite 3 is a championship fight to crown the Middleweight Champion, and both semi final bouts of the ProElite heavyweight tournament are on the same card, with the final bout being shown on a later show to crown a champion. BigzMMA (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating its own champion, when consensus says it isn't even a second tier MMA organization (see WT:MMA#ProElite), does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete because if you're not going to allow articles for individual Bellator events, when they actually have a strong national TV presence, you certainly can't justify them for an even smaller promotion like this. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all, because they succesfully meet WP:GNG since all the coverage is not WP:ROUTINE. The first event of a mainstream promotion is automatically notable. The tournament matches help to determine a tournament champion and received non-routine sports coverage, so they also pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also, we should restore the Bellator events due to their strong national TV presence that justifies both their articles' existence as well as these ones here. No reason for deletion or redirects of Bellator or ProElite articles is likely to ever exist. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all The organization is notable, but each individual event is not. These cards feature only a handful of notable fighters, which makes them not very different from the dozens of mixed martial arts events that occur every month. The issue isn't how often this promotion promotes events, it is how often events like them occur (which is quite frequently, given the increasingly mainstream nature of the sport). Having UFC cast-offs does not inherently make these events notable. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all these events meet GNG, as they have all been a 'subject of multiple independent articles', which according to MMANOT, it does meet. They also meet all 5 point in GNG, which is a stronger notability system than MMANOT, so all in all, ProElite events meet GNG, and which they have the right to remain on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles are just routine coverage it doesn't satisfy any criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all because if you don't, it prevent other people to see the relevance to add more important information on pages related to the fastest growing sport in the world in Mixed Martial Arts. Plus, these pages meet all the needed requirements to remain as a basic page on Wikipedia. FistsOfFury123 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep pages meets GNG, plenty of articles out for all events and events are happening more frequently. MMADon101 10:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMADon101 (talk • contribs)

• Strong keep all ProElite is becoming big and recently partnered up with DREAM to co-promote and exchange fighters. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a lot of coverage--that's typical of any sporting event. What no one has yet shown is how the coverage is anything but WP:ROUTINE--"routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"-- or how these are significant sporting events instead of just another fight card of a new MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a lot of atypical coverage of these notable sporting events. No one has yet to show how the coverage is routine or how these events are insignificant:

  Pro Elite 1: first event of the promotion, aired live on major MMA website Sherdog.com, given a lot of coverage beyond just results and announcements if waaay more than "tabloids", which is a bit insulting to level at the serious journalists who covered this event, of fights for being the first event of a revived effort by promoters after the Elite FC debacle. Plus, participants included former UFC heavyweight champion Andrei Arlovski and Olympic medalist Sara McMann.

  Pro Elite 2: first televised event of the promotion, which as a consequence caused it to receive more than just rudimentary coverage due to its TV deal with HD Net, in addition to the event featured bouts as part of a Heavyweight Grand Prix (the promotion's first ever tournament) and participation on the fight card of former UFC heavyweight champions Andre Arlovski and Tim Sylvia.

  Pro Elite 3: aired on notable cable station HD Net, included participation from Olympic medalist Sara McMann, included participation from UFC veteran Kendall Grove, which also resulted in coverage beyond just one line results of the event, and occurred amidst additional coverage of the promotion's new alliance with Japan's Dream, which is indeed a significant event in MMA history. Also, USA Today] is hardly a tabloid and certainly not some niche newspaper site that only covers MMA. By the way, this event was previewed across many paragraphs with images in USA today's printed version as well, meaning it received national media coverage at length in the mainstream press, not just local coverage and not just coverage from MMA sites. That is hardly "routine" for mixed martial arts events. Whereas we may have multiple televised basketball et al games a week, we have maybe one or two televised MMA events in any given week, if even...

• If anything, these article's just need some additional expansion. At worst we would have these merged and redirected to a list of events with the tournament brackets, but it is absurd to suggest that televised events which received considerable mainstream coverage due to the many firsts involved with these particular events as well as their historic significance due to the participation of mixed-martial arts champions and an Olympic medalists. There is simply no "need" or benefit to our project by suppressing this factual information from public view. Just not liking something or being ignorant about the topic is no reason to try to ruin things for others or to stifle human knowledge. And as far as this whole "routine" non-argument goes, well, as shown, these are simply not "routine," but even if you really think they are, well, so what? We are talking about three events! These are not somehow taking up all kinds of space that are making Wikipedia unnavigable or something. ROFL! Even if we did cover individual events in other sports, why on earth would we not want to be the most comprehensive source of verifiable information relevant to our readership that we can be anyway?! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All three articles appear to be routine coverage containing simple fight results. They contain very little (practically no) "well sourced prose" such that the articles are not "merely just a list of stats" (WP:SPORTSEVENT). I just checked the articles; the first and second event articles contain only a single reference offering coverage of the event itself beyond fight results. The third article offers three references (which is getting better IMO). An earlier call in this discussion for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" have produced no results that I can tell, thus the events still appear to fail WP:GNG. A televised event is not inherently notable. A first time event for an organization (MMA or otherwise) is not inherently notable. A sporting event that includes a few notable participants is not inherently notable.

On a personal level, I have to say I am extremely disappointed by the number of !votes by people who do nothing but !vote to keep articles up for AfD. Looking at their contributions list, they do nothing to improve any articles on Wikipedia, MMA Wikiproject articles or otherwise. It is a slap in the face to me and others who put in time and effort to cleanup and improve articles. I'd have more respect for some of those keep votes and those editors if they contributed something more. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is flat out not true to say the non-routine coverage only contains fight results. Previews of the cards for example as what appeared in the print version of USA Today is by its nature as a preview not "results". Something covered across multiple paragraphs that discuss the ramifications of the fights and the history of the fighters involved is not mere "stats" either. The condition of the articles is a reason to improve them, not to delete them. Looking over the first draft of many articles, including ones on famous historical subjects do not always look good, but we improve them instead of delete them. As the commenter above me notes, quote, "the first and second event articles...contain...reference offering coverage of the event itself beyond fight results" and that is just in the articles, let alone the numerous sources that we can and should also add to the articles as well and also acknowledges that the third article's references added since the discussion started do indeed show signs of improvement. The call for additional sources has been answered and is in the process of being addressed to improve the articles as well, which undeniably and objectively pass the WP:GNG, because these are not just televised events, but notable televised events and yes a first event of a mainstream televised promotion featuring UFC champion level fighters and that is written about in not just blogs, but newspaper articles by non-MMA specific publishers is inherently notable by any reasonable interpretation of the concept. And if we are talking personal levels, I am far more disappointed by the number of delete votes we see in this and other discussions by accounts and IPs that never improve or add anything to these or other articles for that matter. TreyGeek, you may help add articles, but seriously, how many deletes from this and other discussions do we see that ever do anything more than just lazily dismiss everything as non-notable without actually doing search sourcing. And for the record, after I make this post, I will indeed add at least one source to an article under discussion here to show by example and not just words. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is phase one of my effort to expand these articles using mainstream sources. And for the record, I am not a mere AfD commenter. I made thousands of IP edits before creating an account and I created an account largely to create articles and have more credibility when I comment in discussions, because IPs seem to be dismissed. I may not be the best writer, but I am willing to contribute content as well, and have started Supremacy MMA and UFC: Tapout 2, for example, which are major MMA related articles that contain sections on background, reception, etc. I hate to call anyone out, but if you say look at these contributions, the consistent of templating and nominating things rather than improving them. Please do not lump all keeps together as non-article contributors when some of the more vocal deletes' mainspace edits consist primarily of just trying to get rid of stuff. The truth is some of the keeps do little more than say keep, yes, but the same goes for some of the deletes as well. My contention is that these articles are worth expanding or at worst as was the case with Bellator, having list of event kind of merge locals, and as I have demonstrated I am indeed willing to help improve these articles and not just argue about them. And to be honest, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellator 55, I really do not see a consensus to merge anyway. The nominator has bizarre editing intentions to start things off, and the discussion is more of a no consensus, but in any event, the articles were still not outright deleted. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I can see it, the consensus right now stands as 7-4 in favour of keep all the pages as they are, now we can debate whether they should or shouldn't be allowed on here or even merged with the main page, but the fact is that more people have voted to keep the ProElite event pages than those who'd rather see it go, so because of this unless anyone else votes within the next few days, I'd say we should close this debate because its going nowhere with all this 'comments'. BigzMMA (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is not a vote and no valid reasons have yet been given for keeping, but WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT are valid for deleting. Being on television is not sufficient to show notability since virtually every MLB and NFL would meet that standard. Ghits are not valid when they're just routine sports reporting. The argument that everything should be in WP is also invalid. Astudent0 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as no valid reasons have yet been given for deleting, as the articles clearly pass WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT because they go beyond just being on television like some weekly MLB or NFL game due to the fact these non routine events occurred months apart and are one of only a handful of internationally televised MMA promotions. There are thousands of annual baseball and football games that are televised around the world, but that is simply not the case yet with MMA. These are exceptional events and anyone who actually reads ghits will see as has been shown above that these events received more than just routine sports coverage due to the participation of Olympic medalist and UFC champion caliber fighters as well as because of their relevance to the history of the sport, notably the heavyweight tournament that has occurred across two of the events and the significance of the women's fights that are discussed at length in sources and not just reported upon briefly. No one is arguing that "everything" should be on Wikipedia. I doubt anyone here thinks made up nonsense should be on Wikipedia, but the first event of a major promotion, the first televised event of a major promotion, and event featuring a tournament to determine a promotion's champion from a promotion that is partnering with a major cable network and a major Japanese promotion is notable by any rationale stretch of the concept of notability. And no, this is not a "vote," but the facts remain that the majority of the community who has commented here interpret policy as such that support these articles' inclusion on this site; the fact remains that no one has provided any reason why at worst these articles would not be merged and redirected to the page on the promotion itself (there are no BLP violations in the articles' histories...) and nor has anyone factually demonstrated, because no one can honestly do so, that multiple paragraph length coverage in non-mixed martial arts specific PRINT, not just online, newspapers both before and after the events that discuss these events rather than just list the results is not significant coverage in multiple sources. Comparing the first event in a promotion's history with any bi-weekly or what have you baseball game is apples and oranges. Comparing an event that features a tournament round is not comparable with a regular season game. Comparing an event that occurs months apart from the previous one and when that event is from one of the handful of currently televised promotions (UFC, Bellator, and Strikeforce being among some of the only others currently) is also not a really valid or fair comparison. No one here has argued that events from local promotions receiving one or two sources that just list results should be covered. No one here has said all MMA events are "notable", but what the majority of editors are saying is that something discussed at length both before and after beyond routine results from major websites (Sherdog, MMAFighting) and major newspapers (USA Today) and that is televised on a well-known cable network (HDNet) that features an undefeatd Olympic medalist and two former UFC champions as well as tournament bouts is worthy of at best continued improvement and at worst merging and redirecting. There is simply no purpose, no actual benefit to anyone by taking the needlessly drastic and unjustifiable step of outright redlinking these pages. By contrast. Surely "ProElite 1" is at worst a valid search term and given their partnership with Dream and the continuation of the heavyweight tournament, their notability is if anything only increasing as well as reader interest in these in addition to journalistic coverage of them as articles on future events will likely refer back to the three that got it all started. --WR Reader (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at worst, keep #1 and #2 and redirect/merge #3 back to ProElite... but reducing a reader's understanding of a topic is never a good first choice when issues are addressable. The applicable guideline indicates that an ongoing series may have notability, and "ProElite 1" PerElite 2" and ProElite 3" appear to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG and thus allows us improvable topics. With respects to the nominator, improving a reader's understanding of any topic is always the greater consideration. Better to improve the improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 24 January 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.