Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events

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 speedy keep. No policy-based arguments for deletion have been put forth either by the nominator or by those who support deletion; taking into account the fact that this article was created as a consequence of two other AfDs and that this deletion discussion is just the latest manifestation of a recent pattern of disruptive activity, I think that it should be speedily closed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This page was created to replace individual UFC pages by the consensus of two people after literally one day of debate. Udar55 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong DeleteThis style of article is just a pointless conglomeration of what otherwise would solid stand alone pages. It doesn't even show the results of the fights which honestly is the only reason people would look at the page. I don't understand why this push has recently been made, but it's an absolutely terrible idea. The previous style of an article per event was perfect, why change it to something so stupid? There is absolutely no value on this consolidated page. Pull lead (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article contains well sourced prose. Also, the nominator hasn't cited a Wikipedia policy or guideline that the article violates and appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This article was done in haste, has no useful information, the old articles were superior to this one in everyway, it fails to list the most important part of the article, which are the fights, and most people are against it. This new article is a giant wall of meaningless text, and lets be honest, the old way was perfect, and it worked, this does not cut it, and is also titled terribly, even if this article worked, it should be like 2012 UFC events or UFC events in 2012. The only ones who support this abombination are the ones who created it and their cronies. Change it back. And yes, you TreyGeek, and MtKing, have violated the policy you try and shove in our faces. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Speedy Keep - This article was created via the implied requests of admin User:DGG when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and admin User:Beeblebrox when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9, both of which have already publicly supported the direction that this article is taking at ANI [1] and other places as well. It has also been discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2#Omnibus articles What we have here is a group tantrum that isn't based in policy, but rather, is a "keep it the way it was at all costs" campaign. The rationale for nomination is invalid from the start and doesn't specify any criteria that the article fails nor policy it runs afoul of. The nominator is either not aware of or doesn't concern himself with the weeks prior to this article's creation, and the thought and consideration from multiple admins and users that went into it, and his oversimplification of "two users" is either mistaken or misleading. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that they are admins, and that they suggested this by implication doesn't have any bearing on the worth of this article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointing out that they closed the last two AFD's saying that someone needs to create this exact article does have bearing. If you read the other AFDs and closing statements, and the other items I linked, it would make more sense, which is why I provided links. This article was created because two closing admins determined that merging them to this article (at that time, not created) is meaningful. And they have both since agreed that this article is in keeping with their closing statements, ie: it was their interpretation of the consensus of the community. In short, this article exists because the community had previously decided it should, in two separate, recent instances. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you make a pretty good point there. I've just never heard how it came into being used to support continued existence. I guess I just felt that saying "admin" twice was sort of name-dropesque, as though it would give this article clout, if you see what I mean. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No prob. I'm not always the best at communicating. To delete this article, in essence, is to overrule those two previous and recent AFDs where there had already been established consensus. More importantly, this doesn't prevent any event that is really notable from having its own page. The nay-sayers don't understand this. It just consolidates everything and serves as a spring board, so the lesser notable stuff can be KEPT instead of deleted. Ironic that this will result in more MMA info, not less, yet they are arguing against it. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article should remain because it passes WP:GNG, period. It can coexist with the stand-alone articles. Whether or not those articles remain is another matter. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Keep - I was against this idea before when it had just the prose. There has always been the question of notability for these events, but with the results also entered in as they were before. I commend whoever did this. I can live with it just fine. Why have separate pages when one page will tell you the same thing? Jahahn (gab) 17:39, 31 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.