Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (April to June)

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 delete. all except List of UFC events in 2012. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events (April to June)

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

Redundant & poorly maintained. Delete for same reason as 2012 in UFC events (January to March). Completely unnecessary as it merely contains some links to already established articles as well as redunant information already contained in those articles. I remember halloween (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is just another iteration of this type of page for the next 3 months]:

Strong Oppose - This is getting ridiculous, people keep making articles and deleting them, WP:MMA has been turned into a complete mess, there is duplication but it's being caused by event articles being deleted, merged, and moved on a constant merry-go-round. Please see this thread, consensus needs to be reached as to how the event articles are to be organized to put an end to all this wiki warring. Once that's achieved articles in need of deletion can be renominated.--Phospheros (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThese omnibus year articles were a knee jerk result of the TreyGeek/Mt King attempted routing of all MMA articles. Eventually they folded and agreed single articles were the way to go, but for some reason a few people continued to very sparingly and inconsistently update thes 2012 omnibus articles. Now we have a move toward solidifying the single article structure which is moving along quite well and a half hearted effort to sort of keep these mini-omnibuses current. It's wasted duplicate effort which makes it much more confusing while trying to find the material you are looking for. Deleting these will make accessibility to data much easier for all users.I remember halloween (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TreyGeek did not agree single articles are the way to go. TreyGeek was harassed and bullied out of the MMA WikiProject space. Lets at least try to be truthful about the situation. I still maintain that not all UFC events are notable and deserve their own separate article. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to give all UFC cards individual articles, would it then not make more sense to first recreate articles such as UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall prior to deleting there omnibus (2012 in UFC events (April to June)) articles?--Phospheros (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my subject area, but List of UFC events in 2012 seems like a rather different list than the others, an obvious index of (mostly) notable topics as many of the individual events have their own articles. So why should that one be deleted too? postdlf (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a list of UFC events, what is the point of having one only for 2012? It just creates more redundant garbage that has to be updated (and won't be) that makes finding what you are looking for more difficult.I remember halloween (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SIZE? Dividing it by year would be an obvious way to deal with that. If you're confident that the main list is not too big, however, just redirect the year-specific one. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect to list of UFC events would be fine, but why bother even having that. No one will ever happen across the list of 2012 UFC events page. It just doesn't make any sense to even have it.I remember halloween (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per I remember halloween.
LlamaAl (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Postdlf about List of UFC events in 2012. UFC on Fox shouldn't be deleted as it's a TV programme, not the event per se.--LlamaAl (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 07:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what appears to be essentially an editorial decision, I would normally weight the headcount quite strongly, and so I'm reluctant to do so with so few heads. Wily D 07:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except List of UFC events in 2012. Most of these articles to me appear to be somewhat arbitrary. We're simply deciding on our own to have separate articles on UFC events for a certain time period that we come up with. That is WP:OR, but more importantly it fails WP:GNG because there's no substantial coverage of the subject in reliable souces (the subject being UFC events in one specific time period). I think all of these should be deleted for failure to meet WP:GNG except for List of UFC events in 2012 because there's actually been coverage of these as a group in reliable sources as required under WP:LISTN. See here for one example. This, in any case, seems like a practical solution. You have a list article that simply lists the events, then can navigate to individual event articles presuming they meet WP:N. Is there an issue here with events that may have some reliable sourcing but don't meet WP:N for a standalone article? I.e. are people having problems because they want to put in a sentence or two about not-so-notable events but don't have a place to put that? Just trying to understand what's going on. --Batard0 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there was a push to put semi-notable UFC articles into an omnibus article. However because the UFC now promotes so many shows that was broken up into first yearly articles then further into quarterly articles. All the while there was dissension with some strongly opposed to the omnibus articles (This included offsite organizing to nominate omnibus articles for deletion) and others arguing it was the best way to keep semi-notable events (Some argue all UFC events are inherently notable). As a result articles where being merged, split as "to large", moved, renamed, deleted, & recreated, thus navigability has become a serious problem. I personally don't care how it's organized, just so long as stability is achieved so a user can find what there looking for.--Phospheros (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussion ad naseum before it was overwhelming that people wanted to remain with the single article per event structure to provide the maximum usability and ease of navigation. We've been working on improving the single articles so that they all are well equipped to stand up to quality criticism and made great improvements so far. What I'm trying to do is eliminate the competiting duel systems of organization which are making finding quality material a disaster. Only 2 people wanted to do the omnibus thing and neither of them have made any contributions at all to them so they have stagnated and are terrible. It makes the most sense from an organizational standpoint and to increase the quality of the user experience to kill all the ominbus, return completely to the single article per event structure and focus all editors efforts on improving those articles.I remember halloween (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of articles that redirect to this one as per outcomes of earlier MMA AfD's. I hope that those in support of the deletion are not doing so in the hope that those articles can some how be reinstated as stand alone articles. I also ask to closing admin to consider carefully User:I remember halloween's comments at this Afd in light of the attempt to deceive the process as evidenced by this post; firstly as the user is fully aware the Omnibus proposal came about as a direct result of a AfD close by User:Beeblebrox and this post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and secondly (as User:TreyGeek posts above) nether TreyGeek or myself ever "agreed single articles were the way to go" I challenge User:I remember halloween to post the dif's or to retract that statement. Mt king ^(edits) 11:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except List of UFC events in 2012 - 2012 in UFC events (April to June) are too narrow of focus without a basis for slicing up the List of UFC events in 2012 that way. List of UFC events in 2012 should have a separate AfD since it is not similarly situated as 2012 in UFC events (April to June), etc. List of UFC events in 2012 should support a List of UFC events article which, in turn, should support the Ultimate Fighting Championship article. The relationsips are not there in the Wikipedia List articles, so eventually they all may be deleted.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think deleting the List of UFC events article is a good idea? That is extraordinarily useful and very highly trafficed.I remember halloween (talk) 19:30, 3 November 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.