Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 1

Hi, I thought I'd discuss the matter here, rather than WP:MMA. Good work on this draft. My thoughts are as such:

Organisations

Yeah, I totally agree with the criteria, though I'd add a few examples in:

• Maximum Fighting Championship - Canada's top promotion
• Affliction Entertainment - a fairly large (now defunct) organisation, given they had some top names like Fedor Emelianenko and Andrei Arlovski, as well as their continued clothing venture.

I didn't think MFC was quite there yet--geographically limited, seems more like a training ground for bigger promotions. I didn't think about Affliction. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Events

I'm not sure how this is defined. Would you have the UFC/WEC/Strikeforce/DREAM events or not? I'd say there is definitely the need for them.

I was thinking about almost all fight cards, unless something significant happened besides the fight outcomes. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree on the coverage
• The highest title. Now by this, I can only think of one example in Cage Rage. They had Cage Rage world champions and Cage Rage British champions. For me, both have notability and symbolised the top of the organisation.

I was actually thinking about Shooto which has at least Pacific Rim, Rookie, and European Amateur titles as well as their world titles. Given the number of organizations and the usual athletic standards (Olympics or World Championships), I felt only the highest title should be considered.Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• The biggest gripe I have with this well-done draft is the SIX fight quota needed. Such notables as Amir Sadollah or Matt Mitrione don't meet this standard. For me, this should be two. That then allows such fighters as the aforementioned Mitrione and others not earlier mentioned such as Rory MacDonald (fighter).

Thought you might dislike that number. The reason I set it that high is because I only want to include truly notable fighters. Many are signed to 1 or 2 fight contracts that are essential tryouts. Also, I don't believe all the organizations are equally notable, but I wanted to keep the criteria simple. Another issue to me was if someone tried to count the fights on TUF--I don't consider those equal to regular UFC fights. If I were king I'd say TUF fights don't count. How about a compromise of 3 fights, not including TUF? Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The deletion criteria:

• Fought pre-dominantly for non-notables. Well this could outweigh point 3 from notability. A fighter could have 15 fights in local shows, before having the required fights in major organisations. By definition, that fighter, despite passing notability, therefore also meets deletion criteria, having fought mostly for locals.

Agreed. It should be obvious that meeting notability is the real criteria. I'll rewrite that. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One other point I'd make is that there's no mention given here about The Ultimate Fighter. How many of these are classed as notable? How do they pass it by the majority's standards? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure how to deal with TUF. See my comments on the number of fights. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Papaursa, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to reply at the bottom, just so that it doesn't become all confused later on.

Your first point: MFC, I'd say is no more a feeder league than Bellator is. The last MFC event, I believe, featured a main event of Thales Leites vs. Jesse Taylor, two former UFC competitors; one of which who competed in a main event, for the UFC MW title. While not HUGE names, they are certainly notable in my opinion. I'm not going to push MFC adamantly, but I'd say it's worth investigation as to whether it could be included.

Second point: I think personally that all events from the BIG organisations, as I previously mentioned deserve note. Every WWE pay-per-view, if we use this as a basis for comparison, has its each article and I believe the two fall under similar categorisation.

Third point: Shooto, I had no idea about. You mention an "amateur" title. Yeah, absolutely not notable in my opinion. Worth a mention in articles, but not something that should be wholly relied on for notability. However, I would be interested in your opinion on my previous Cage Rage example.

Fourth point: I get your point about 1/2 fight contracts and I'd say that for most organisations, that's largely true. I'd say all though, but UFC. With UFC being the highest level of competition, I wouldn't quite classify it as a tryout under the classic definition as I understand. I would say that by definition, taking on any fighter is a gamble, as they could be a massive flop (e.g. Rolles Gracie), but that doesn't mean that they are taken on as a tryout, because some of the fighters sign 2 fight contracts, lose both and stay on, e.g. Jacob Volkmann. I think it would be stubborn of me to dig my heels in and request 2, so yeah, neither of us would be particularly happy with it, but I guess 3 has to be the way forward.

As for TUF, I still maintain that competitors are notable, by virtue of WP:ATHLETE, though I guess the parameters we're looking to set in place completely go against that. As such, I'm not entirely sure the right way to go with this. I'd definitely say that those invited back to the live finale should be notable, as though they potentially don't have 2/3/however many fights, they have the combination of at least that one live fight at the TUF Finale, as well as participation in a highly notable show (owing to its Zuffa banner).

One final point/question: are we including anything about having fighters that haven't competed in notable events, BUT have competed against many notable opponents? Paralympiakos (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Truth be told, I wasn't that keen on including Bellator but went with it based on comments on the MMA project talk page. I'm inclined to leave MFC off right now, but if they continue to draw notable fighters they can be added. My inclination is to add and remove organizations slowly. If I had the information, I'd look at how international the fighters are to help determine an organization's notability. Fighters' paychecks would be another criteria I'd use, if I could (both for organizations and the fighters themselves). However, lacking that information I'm trying to find easy to use reference points.

I'd argue the WWE events shouldn't have their own pages either. I stick with what WP:N says.

As for the Cage Rage example, I go back to the WP:ATH standard of world championships and Olympics. However, since we've reduced the number of fights to 3, this shouldn't be an issue. If you're fighting for a championship and you don't have two previous fights yet, I'd say it's not much of a championship.

I'd be willing to count the TUF finale as a fight.

As for fighters that haven't competed in notable events, but have fought notable fighters--that probably means they didn't fight them in their prime. Think of the baseball analogy--minor leaguers compete against players who go on to be major leaguers or who were major leaguers all the time, but they're not notable. If they're good enough they become major leaguers themselves.

Finally, there are meant to be guidelines--they're not Wikipedia policy. Each fighter should be looked at on their own merits, it's possible there could be circumstances that might make a fighter notable who doesn't match the criteria we've discussed. I just want to get something down that people can refer to that's more objective and agreed upon than one person's opinion. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me pop in about TUF, I think they should all have pages, as not only as fighters, but as TV "stars" There are comics from last comic standing and other "reality" shows that spent less time on TV that are on wikipedia (ducking rocks from TreyGeek) David.snipes (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go with this, for the most part. There are some, (if we take TUF 9 for example) like AJ Wenn etc who aren't worthy of inclusion as they don't make it into the house, but some prelim fighters are involved in incidents that are fairly notable.

I'm also thinking about the reinstatement of Zak Jensen, especially since he's currently being investigated for homicide. Gives an extra layer to this article. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not go with the ones that lost the pre-lims, but the main show- I.E the ones with IMDB entries. David.snipes (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

No problem about MFC. We'll just see how it goes then.

I think having event pages for the most notable organisations is justified, but even if I didn't, you'd find it impossible to battle this as you'll face a backlash from disgruntled IPs.

To be honest, there could be examples of fighters competing for a title despite not having lots of prior experience, e.g. Brock Lesnar. I can see where you're coming from, but that would have to be a case-by-case basis.

Finally, I'd say I'm fairly happy wit h this draft. If you want to put it up, that would be great. Good work! Paralympiakos (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Let me all a bit to the roster.

USA-MMA: Currently runs about 4 cards a year- all sellout, and recently had Ricco take thier Heavyweight title, Ken Shamrock is expected to sign after the Impact tour. They have had several larger card fighters come through thier ranks, and considering a good many of them have fought on Shine and Bellator came from that organization, big things are coming.

I do need to add an event listing for this one, but as of yet, had not had an oppertunity yet.

Ring Rulers: I still need to finish this page- but its the largest amatuer organization in the country, running about 20 events a year in 6 states. Will Campuzano (WEC) might be the biggest name from there so far- but 6 of the Bellator 18 fighters came from there. Fighters that turned pro from there have fought in Dream, Shine, Bellator and TUF.

Naturally I have not added the event listings for this organization, as by themselves they are not notable.

Speaking of- We also need to add Impact to the Oceanic portion.

Other than that- awesome job! David.snipes (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Hey guys,

Good job getting this all organized. I don't have the time to edit on Wikipedia as much as I used to, but I've been in this project for a while now and wanted to give my quick thoughts:

-It seems to me that the Criteria supporting notability is a little too restrictive. When a fighter makes it to the big time (UFC), even if they only fight once, that seems to be the consensus for notability among the Wikipedia Sports community: Most atheltes in the major North American sports leagues that have played for at least one season seem to have a Wikipedia page (and often more extensive than the majority of MMA fighters' pages). In my experience the community needs to make more pages regarding MMA fighters. Also, MMA is lucky when it receives any coverage at all from the national media (either than the MMA media).

-The Current list of notable MMA organizations is missing World Victory Road, the parent company of Sengoku Raiden Championship (formerly just Sengoku) (I think someone got it mixed it with Shooto on the WP:MMA page). WVR is definitely one of the Top 10 MMA Promotions in the world- and I could make the argument that it is Top 5.

I will try to keep checking up on this project, keep up the good work. (Justinsane15 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Justinsane15 I most definitely agree with you that the criteria is way too strict and that it needs loosening to allow the growth of other MMA promotions and their fighters. I have put a suggested layout at the bottom which follows similar aspects of the current criteria but it allows much more freedom on the slightly lesser known promotions who are still making their names and getting recognition. Please feel free to comment and suggest any more changes to your heart's content. I would also like your opinion of having BAMMA, Cage Rage and EliteXC being pushed to top tier. I feel that each has/have done enough to earn that spot due to their popularity, recognition (Cage Rage is recognised across the UK, even to those who simply can't stand the sport) and what they have accomplished, such as BAMMA signing Nate Marquardt (a Top 10 Middleweight in ranking systems such as Sherdog) and EliteXC currently hold the highest ratings a MMA event has had in the USA (Kimbo Slice vs. James Thompson). BigzMMA 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

---

I think we should keep discussions about changes, additions, subtractions, on the MMA project's talk page. That said, any comments that improve these guidelines are good.

Let me put in my 2 cents on some of the recent comments. Given that most professional MMA circuits don't make the cut, it's hard to see how an amateur circuit operating in 6 states can be considered notable. Also, when I looked at the World Victory Road page I saw champions given in only 2 divisions. I can't see how an organization can be notable and have champions in only 2 divisions.

I also don't agree with the comparison of 1 MMA fight to a season in other sports leagues. Leagues have 1 season a year--an MMA fighter can fight a number of times in a year. Papaursa (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

New additions

As per above, I added Sengoku. Not sure how that one was missed out.

Anyway, I've added a list of potentials, that while aren't as notable as UFC, PRIDE etc, could, in my eyes, play a small part in establishing notability.

• BAMMA-- with Cage Rage now dead, Cage Warriors and BAMMA are the top two in Britain and are fairly decent. For example, BAMMA 3 was supposed to be headlined by Tom Watson and Alex Reid. It also featured fighters such as Seth Petruzelli and War Machine.

• Elite XC-- I'm sure people don't really need a background for this company. I'd say main carding for Elite XC would be a slight help in establishing notability. I'm not saying that a fighter could have 3 fights here and pass notability; they'd have to have some appearances in the already established list too.

• Maximum Fighting Championship-- see above somewhere.

• Ring of Combat-- bear with me on this one. ROC is pretty much a feeder league for the UFC and they've had a LOT of new guys come from this promotion. As such, I'd say that gives it a decent reputation, albeit as a secondary promotion. As per Elite XC, not 3 apps = notability, but it can be a contributory factor in establishing notability. It's also important to note they've appeared on HDNet fights multiple times. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I added the following promotions that would appear to meet notability guidelines. Each promotion has existed for years and has put on a large number of shows, often with top fighters: King of the Cage, M-1 Global (notable for the M-1 Challenge), and Pancrase. I also alphabetized the list and renamed some items to follow a more consistent naming structure. I also added Impact Fighting Championships and Adrenaline MMA to the list of organizations for future debate regarding notability following the above examples. Eshaeffer (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW) as a second tier promotion. It is the most popular promotion in Poland and one of the biggest in Eastern Europe. Also, the promotion is one of the highest rated programs on polish television (and gets substantial international converage since Mariusz Pudzianowski was brought in), which makes it highly notable.(Justinsane15 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

New changes

I disagree with the new changes, in the way that I perceive them. There is now a second tier (which I actually like, as UFC is obviously far more notable than Adrenaline MMA), but there's no provision for how many 2nd tier fights = notability.

For example, at the moment, Jim Wallhead fails criteria on the basis that he's never fought in the TOP promotions, despite being highly notable. Previously, his Cage Rage career (I'm working off memory here, so I think he passed via that) saw him comfortably pass these guidelines, but now I'm not so sure. Are we going to discuss new rules? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, as many promotions and fighters as possible should be covered. Apart from notability one should pay attention to neutrality - not only in individual articles but also in regard to the selection of articles.

At the moment MMA pages in Wikipedia look as if they had been written by the PR department of the UFC. UFC fighters and fights are described in great detail and they are also hyped way too much. I think Wikipedia is one of the main reasons why many people think that MMA is the same as UFC. 130.235.3.161 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a slight problem with Bitetti Combat MMA being considered second tier when they don't even HAVE A PAGE - It redirects to the event log.

I am also of the opinion that some are trying to be WAY to exclusive here.

Fighters: Basically, we are looking to wipe out every football player that never played 3 seasons in the NFL or The Major Leagues

Let me ask you this- who is the big MMA second tier in the south? Most of these are in the Northeast and in the Rust belt or on the West Coast.

Ring Rulers, Cage Rulers, GFA, USA-MMA have all had shows that outdrew the Bellator shows that have been here the last 2 years. This is like tossing the Ivy League out of the NCAA because no one sees their stuff on Fox and few of the fighters (as of yet) have gotten to the Big Time. David.snipes (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that given the recent changes to the notability guidelines, Bas Rutten would only be on the cusp of being considered notable. There are clearly articles about him,. But, Pancrase is listed as a second-tier organization and he only fought twice in the UFC (even though one fight won him the heavyweight belt), so he would seemingly not meet the criteria if every one of them has to be rigidly satisfied. Are these characteristics supposed to be indicators of notability or requirements for notability? I'm not sure the page as it currently exists makes this clear. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following additional changes to the criteria supporting notability and deletion for organizations. I suspect these changes will be much less controversial than the new criteria for fighters (of course, I could be wrong). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria supporting notability

  1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage
  2. Promotes a large number of events--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable
  3. Has actively been in business for several years--the longer the organization has been around, the better
  4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters

Criteria supporting deletion

  1. Short history
  2. Few notable fighters fight in their events
  3. Primarily regional fighters compete at events.
  3. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies
  4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts

I would support these proposed changes as it is more inclusive and less controversal. (Justinsane15 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

MMA Weight Class Champions

Someone has added the list of current champions to each of the weight class articles (see Heavyweight (MMA) as an example). I believe that this is a good idea. However, I also believe that only the top tier promotions should be included in this list. An IP keeps adding King of the Cage to the list, which is a second tier promotion. Can we set a precedent for this? (Justinsane15 (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Nice idea in principle, but so open to those sort of edits. I've also noticed that the table has "records" for the various fighters. This should definitely be removed as it's just an unnecessary box that needs updating after every single fight. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be to axe them. It will just be another page that will have to be editing following a show when the information can be found elsewhere (and likely in a better place), it will just lead to an additional source of vandalism, and the table has extra information (WEC will likely never have a Heavyweight championship, why is it even on the table?). Get rid of it, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I'm IP 67.149.195.205, who created the tables and kept putting up KOTC. At the time I did not understand why Justinsane15 kept taking KOTC down, I felt it was a well known organization that was worth mentioning, I was unaware of "Top Tier" and "Second Tier". I like to know why WAMMA is not listed as "Top Tier" as well as EliteXC? I made the tables because some boxing weight classes pages such as light middleweight have these tables. I felt why not have these tables for MMA as well? Sorry to be a bother. 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.195.205 (talk)

This information already exists in what I think is a far more useful place (see List of current MMA champions}. It would be far easier to update this single page, then to update each individual page separately. As long as this page is retained (which I hope it is), I see no reason why the pages for each weight class couldn't just link here. I am in favor of keeping KOTC as part of these tables. Current title holders include notable fighters such as Daniel Cormier and Mike Kyle, who also compete in first tier organizations. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cage Fighting Championships

I'm just wondering, how do people regard CFC in Australia presently? They've had a few fighters that pass MMANOT compete at their events. Less than a year ago, Hector Lombard was competing in the organisation. Would people be opposed to adding it to the second tier? Paralympiakos (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong support from me. While it might not be on par with American organisations it is definitely notable in its country, which should be given a lot of weight. It has been running for a long time with multiple events, has had media coverage, and many notable fighters. Ashman05 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My view has been that the second tier should be reasonably inclusive, but not all-inclusive. If the CFC is nationally known in Australia, I'd say go ahead and include it. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New additions to 2nd tier?

Konfrontacja_Sztuk_Walki aka KSW and Superior Challenge seems to be putting on cards with decent international talent, worth being considered for Tier 2? 2.220.196.175 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think these organizations show that the popularity of MMA is growing in Europe, but both of these organizations only average about 2 shows a year. That doesn't seem significant to me, even for second tier organizations. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fighting Network Rings

Anyone think they should be added to the list of notable promotions? They were pretty significant during the 1990s. I could see a case for either first or second tier, but IMO they should definitely be one or the other... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the addition, RINGS was first-tier for its main events and tournaments back in the day. Its regional events (Holland, Russia, USA, Australia, Lithuania, etc.) were less notable, but probably second-tier. Its current reincarnation with the Outside series likely falls outside of the second-tier now, but is still going strong. It seems reasonable to me to include RINGS as second-tier. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Deep and Zst

What are people's thoughts on including either DEEP and/or ZST to the second tier? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I definitely believe DEEP has a place in the tiers, however, I'm not entirely sure where exactly to put it, so I'd say that for the time being it would be best to put it in the second tier so that it is there, and if its bigger than I thought, then go right ahead and put it in the top tier

Again I'm not too sure about ZST, I haven't heard anything about them but it could just be because they are a Japanese promotion and Asian MMA promotion are not my best strong-suit, for this reason, I'd say we need to look them up and see how well known they are, and then make a decision within a few short weeks. (BigzMMA 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

• BigzMMA has already added DEEP to the list of second tier organizations. Normally we wait for more of a consensus, but I won't argue with this decision. However, the article needs more and better sources. The current article lacks the independent sources required to show notability. I don't think ZST warrents even second tier status, at least as written. I think it's hard to claim an MMA organization is notable when they don't have champions in any division above 60 kg. The fact that the first DEEP/ZST international fight card had to be cancelled doesn't help the case. It may well be the articles can be improved, but that's my opinion based on how the articles appear now. Papaursa (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:MMANOT currently unreliable as a system to determine notability of MMA fighters/promotions - need immediate rewriting

This is why I disagree with a lot of things with WP:MMANOT, they say that your only really notable IF you have competed for companies like the UFC, Strikeforce, Pride etc, when fighters like Paul Daley, Jim Wallhead and Neil Grove had their pages way before they competed for a top tier promotion. I find that the criteria for it makes it impossible for anyone who competes for promotions such as BAMMA, Cage Warriors, Cage Rage UK, Shark Fights virtually impossible to be accepted as a notable fighter, when they are probably the most recognised person in the area they fight in, like Tom Watson, who has never fought for companies like UFC or Strikeforce, has competed for Cage Rage and BAMMA and he is one of the most recognised faces in the UK MMA scene. It is also because of this that if it isn't recognised as a big enough promotion the guys who fight for them can't keep their pages unless they already competed for a major promotion, which means that the promotion actually has less 'well known' fighters in their ranks even though, using Tom Watson again as my example, are probably the most recognised people in the area/country they fight for, and then the promotion comes into question and then people are voting for that promotion to be deleted under criteria which is actually tears apart the promotion from the beginning. If promotions are not able to build themselves up not entirely on guys who have been in Pride or the UFC then no promotion can be nominated as a top tier promotion. If this was the case then promotions like Bellator, who hardly uses any recognised faces from the 'major promotions' has established themselves as one of them. In the end of the day, no-one can predict how long a 'major' promotion will stick around for, as Pride did over 10 years worth of events before selling up to the UFC, and we know how that ended, and Affliction, who only did two events and yet they are called a major promotion just because they has all major names who were not competing for the UFC at the time competed for their two only events (which by reading over criteria supporting deletion, it meets one or two of these due to having a really short history and only showing two events). EliteXC is considered a second tier promotion, yet they had many recognised faces fighting for them, they had the highest ratings an MMA event has to date has ever produced with Kimbo Slice's MMA debut taking place within an EliteXC event. To make this very long paragraph shorten to one simple sentence, this page is a total MESS, and disallows any growth of any MMA promotion and any fighter who competes for them. Because of all this I want to see the guides for MMA Notability to be completely rewritten so that it can any promotion/s that shows promise can be consider a top tier promotion, with promotions such as BAMMA being included as part of the conversation!

In fact, I may start by suggesting some improvements to the criteria for fighters and promotions on here, I feel that a fighter can meet criteria when he has fought multiple times for what is considered a second tier promotion/s, at leasts 3-5 times without having to compete for what is considered a major promotion like the UFC? The fighter would also meet criteria if he holds the highest title of a 'second tier' promotion at least once, especially if he is the first to hold the belt, such as Alan Omer, who won the first BAMMA World Featherweight Championship. I think that due to how rapid an MMA promotion can grown within 3 years, I say that with promotion criteria to keep it on Wikipedia, I say that a top/second tier promotion that is/has kept in business for a minimum of 3 years to the date of their first event is considered to have met criteria. Also the amount of well known fighters should not matter for whether or not a promotion is successful or even to meet criteria should be dissolved, as without the smaller promotions no-one would have heard of the fighter, and no matter how many pieces of criteria he does not meet, as long as he has fought for the UFC at least once he is safe. Travis Fulton is a brilliant example of how wrong this system is right now, he has only competed in the UFC just twice out of his 300+ fights yet Alan Omer, who has competed over 10 times, including twice for BAMMA, and won the world championship there can be considered for deletion yet Fulton can remain on here even though he has competed for the UFC only 2 times and seems nowhere near going back there, nor does he seem actually be recognised (I don't think people actually knows he has fought for the UFC before).

My biggest issue is how poorly is the list of what a top tier organisation is to what a second tier organisation is is laid out with companies that has only had two events be consider a 'top' promotion whereas EliteXC and Cage Rage, who have just as many recognised fighters as they do and have/had way more events than them be considered a 'second' tier promotion. No matter what happens I want to see this page's criteria and standards to be lowered and rewritten Immediately!!! (BigzMMA 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

• The generally accepted notability criteria for sports requires that an athlete have competed at the highest level of their sport. Why should MMA be different? It's not about how many minor league games you played in, it's about whether you were good enough to reach the top level. The notability criteria you dislike were agreed to by the consensus of the MMA community. We may have disagreed about certain specifics, but in the end this was a compromise everyone could agree on. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Papaursa So lets thinks about one major sporting league on Wikipedia that IS NOT the highest level of the sport, and then lets decide whether that was a valid point. In Football (or Soccer to my American counterparts) the highest level of the sport in the UK is the Premier League, which shows the best teams across England and Wales compete for a full season, with the best team winning the league title and the bottom three dropping down to the Championships division, with the top three of that league takes their places whilst bottom of that league goes to Division 1, and the swap around with their best and their worse goes to Division 2. Now obviously everyone wants to only know about the Premier League unless your team competes for a lower leagues. So what you are saying is that if a team does not compete nor never has competed at the Premier League then it doesn't have a place on here? Well tell that to the people who continue to run these pages, which I will actually give you two pages to save time - Premier League, Football League Championship.

Why should MMA be different? lets look over what I just say above and break down a certain content to a simple sentence. The worse of the division gets de-promoted down to a lower league whilst the best of the lower leagues get promoted. The same is currently used in MMA, even at this moment as you read this. If your not able to beat enough of your competition at the stage your fighting on, then Dana White will give you your P45 (same as a pink slip in Britain) and tell you if you want back in, you gotta beat the competition that stands below them first. Both very similar so far right? Well there is always gotta be somewhere someone can fight elsewhere in otherwise we all may as well say the UFC has turned the business side of MMA into a lottery. And where-ever they end up, there is always going to be guys there who have never been to the UFC who want to get there so badly, and some of them do go to the UFC from that promotion. So what we got there is MMA's version of the Football League Championship, except there isn't just one Football League Championship, there are dozens of them, scattered across the world, some of them are similar size and stature, some bigger than others, none without their flaws yet they are the divisions that shares both fighters who competed at the highest level and want to get back there and fighters who are talented and are working their way to get there for the first time, and for some, do get through and gets to fight for the UFC.

So to answer your question 'Why should MMA be different?' Its because without them, we may not even have a UFC, talent has to come from somewhere and the UFC can't just be expected to find it without having seen them compete before. Even in the earliest days of the UFC, the talent was only one disciplined, yet the UFC was looking for the best from each discipline to compete in their tournament, and how did they know they were the best? They looked for Black Belts in some disciplines like BJJ, Judo and Karate, National Champions in Wrestling, Boxing and Kickboxing, and I can go on with this until the sky turns green with purple stripes but my point is currently clear enough for you to see that the UFC wants the best talent fighting for them, and they need to look somewhere for it. These promotions and the guys fighting for them are just as vital for the UFC's growth as is the UFC putting on the best fights possible with the best fighters they have got.

You cannot possibly say that everything written down on here and called 'criteria' that all MMA promotions/fighters needs to match on this page is the best system to use and treat it like it was calved out by the hands of god. I simply cannot see how a compromise was made when someone/some people wanted to see Affliction Entertainment be made into a top tier promotion, - it clearly fails in one or two criteria to support it's position on Wikipedia and meets two criteria that supports it deletion, whereas Cage Rage, an MMA organisation that meets ALL criteria supporting its notability for both it's fighters and its events can still be considered a 'second tier' promotion. Matter of fact I will put the list of all the 'notable' fighters that have competed for Cage Rage here -

The following fighters (in alphabetical order) have won titles in Cage Rage and are well-known in the world of MMA.

• Mostapha al-Turk
• Vitor "The Phenom" Belfort
• Michael "The Count" Bisping
• Paul "Semtex" Daley
• Mark Epstein
• Ian "The Machine" Freeman
• Zelg "Benkei" Galešić
• Masakazu "The Master of Leglocks" Imanari
• Paul Jenkins
• Chris "Lights Out" Lytle
• Melvin "No Mercy" Manhoef
• Che Mills
• Abdul Mohamed
• Brad "One Punch" Pickett
• Vitor "Shaolin" Ribeiro
• "Relentless" Paul Taylor
• Jean "White Bear" Silva
• Anderson "The Spider" Silva
• Tengiz Tedoradze
• Mark "the Wizard" Weir
• James "The Messenger" Zikic

Non-titleholders who have competed in Cage Rage and in other top-level promotions.

• Tank Abbott
• Edson Drago
• John Hathaway
• Travis Lutter
• Evangelista Santos
• Antony Rea
• Sami Berik
• Jason Barrett
• Jorge Rivera
• Murilo "Ninja" Rua
• Babalu Sobral
• Lee Hasdell
• 'Butterbean'
• Gary Turner
• Ken Shamrock
• Herb Dean
• Alex Reid

I got this off the Cage Rage page, I have updated it slightly by adding in the last champions of the company that have made it in companies like the UFC, but it may not be completely accurate, as there may be around 10+ more people from Cage Rage that has made it to the 'top tier' leagues and have not been recorded.

I find it a disgrace that promotions like this are (or were if they are no longer running) considered second tier when they are the most recognised promotions in the world, even people who despise MMA in the UK all recognised the Cage Rage name, and I'm sure that the Americans know about Cage Rage also. If that doesn't spell 'Top Tier Promotion' clear enough, then well I must be the only sane person who uses and writes for Wikipedia.

Like I said, I think it's time for this page to be rechecked and rewritten. It is also like I said before, there are element that need improving, changing, updating and deleted, but EVERYTHING needs rewriting. (BigzMMA 10:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

UCMMA/Cage Rage UK

It is because of this that one of Britain top three MMA promotions, along side BAMMA and Cage Warriors is deleted on wikipedia, even though it is as notable as you can get, as they have a Sky Sports TV deal, the biggest sporting channel in the UK and the same one used as their orginal MMA promotion - Cage Rage, used until its demise. I think its time we really do chage many things on this page!! (BigzMMA 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

I think what needs to change is your viewpoint. Nine editors contributed to the AFD discussion of UCMMA and you were the only one who thought it should be kept. You've already told us that the people who disagree with you are "a lynch mob" and know nothing about MMA. Here again, you're claiming you know better than the consensus of everyone else. You've admitted to being a shill for this organization--contacting them, trying to promote them via WP, asking for help making them notable, etc. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if the boot fits Astudent0 ... Look if you really think that UCMMA is un-notable, then either you don't bother digging for information on them or you just don't bother going further than a Google search, but either way anyone who looks into UCMMA/Cage Rage UK properly can see that it has a place on Wikipedia (which by the way was long on here before I began editing). I don't claim to know better, but I do know that this system is so flawed that it badly needs changing pronto. I have not been a 'shill for this organization' as you so claim, I have already talked about this, which clearly didn't get around otherwise you would not be accusing me of this. I did the editing on my own, at my own expense with no assistance nor offered any by the Head of Media of Cage Rage UK. The person behind the UCMMA Facebook page kept saying there was no need for me doing the Wikipedia pages, so how can I be a 'shill' when they didn't even want my help. All of the messages I sent about this are on their Facebook group Wall page, which of course with the time gone pass now you would have to keep going down to the bottom of the page and click 'older posts' to find everything to do with the Wikipedia page. Again clearly no-one pays attention to that as you just shown. Let get real for one minute about this promoting thing. Anything to type into Google with have a Wikipedia page in the first page of the search, so its not as if it wouldn't attract the attention of people who see this as a way of getting information about that organisation. Who said it isn't happening for, say, the UFC's page, or Bellator's? I'm the only one that has the balls to admit my motives on here and you call me an unreliable person for that? try hounding down the person/people who does other MMA related pages and see who exactly they are. Whos says that Alistair Overeem's brother isn't editing his page? Is Georges St Pierre's cousin making small edits about his personal life on here? You really don't know anyone's true motives on here, yet you can be assured when I say that if I'm on here for the sport's best interests, believe me, that's exactly why I am on here. And as far as that last thing you said, I'm not even going to address it because it is such a pathetic thing you said. What I will say is that everyone on Wikipedia should be looking to keep information up-to-date and notable, and I did my fair part for it.

Suggestions for improvement for WP:MMANOT page

In fact, I may start by suggesting some improvements to the criteria for fighters and promotions on here, I feel that a fighter can meet criteria when he has fought multiple times for what is considered a second tier promotion/s, at leasts 3-5 times without having to compete for what is considered a major promotion like the UFC? The fighter would also meet criteria if he holds the highest title of a 'second tier' promotion at least once, especially if he is the first to hold the belt, such as Alan Omer, who won the first BAMMA World Featherweight Championship. I think that due to how rapid an MMA promotion can grown within 3 years, I say that with promotion criteria to keep it on Wikipedia, I say that a top/second tier promotion that is/has kept in business for a minimum of 3 years to the date of their first event is considered to have met criteria. Also the amount of well known fighters should not matter for whether or not a promotion is successful or even to meet criteria should be dissolved, as without the smaller promotions no-one would have heard of the fighter, and no matter how many pieces of criteria he does not meet, as long as he has fought for the UFC at least once he is safe. Travis Fulton is a brilliant example of how wrong this system is right now, he has only competed in the UFC just twice out of his 300+ fights yet Alan Omer, who has competed over 10 times, including twice for BAMMA, and won the world championship there can be considered for deletion yet Fulton can remain on here even though he has competed for the UFC only 2 times and seems nowhere near going back there, nor does he seem actually be recognised (I don't think people actually knows he has fought for the UFC before). (BigzMMA 11:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

My biggest issue is how poorly is the list of what a top tier organisation is to what a second tier organisation is is laid out with companies that has only had two events be consider a 'top' promotion whereas EliteXC and Cage Rage, who have just as many recognised fighters as they do and have/had way more events than them be considered a 'second' tier promotion. No matter what happens I want to see this page's criteria and standards to be lowered and rewritten Immediately!!! (BigzMMA 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Please feel free to add to this (BigzMMA 11:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

• Papaursa made a good point above. As for your example: Travis Fulton has nearly 250 MMA wins, won a World Vale Tudo Championship in Brazil, fought in the early stages of both the UFC and WEC while Alan Omer "has competed over 10 times, including twice for BAMMA". You think that makes Omer more notable? Really? You should also notice that, although you're complaining about fighters being removed, each of the closed AfD discussions had 10+ editors involved. Your desire to overrule consensus because you know better (like in the UCMMA discussion) is counter to WP policy. Astudent0 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please try not to freak out Astudent0 but I moved your paragraph just above this one here because I already had a paragraph written before yours there and would confuse anyone readying them. Those 250 wins, with only TWO UFC fights and ONE WEC fight? staticically that isn't even 1% of all his MMA fights. In those 250 wins, I hardly see many notable fighters, but I can't possibly say it can be more than 5. I do not see any information on him being a Vale Tudo Champion and even if he was, it means nothing towards his position on Wikipedia, imagine a kickboxer on Wikipedia who is hardly known and doesn't much criteria to keep him on here and he has a Muay Thai title, it means nothing towards his case. I've had a look at his whole MMA record, and towards the top he has fought and beat Mike Kofoot SIX TIMES - STRAIGHT apart. He basically beat a nobody 6 times in a row for organisations even the local people may not have heard of. The total number of notable fighters he has fought wouldn't even cover 10% of his total fight record, the guy's only claim to face is 1-1 UFC record, in a time which the UFC calls 'The Dark Ages'. Its a joke he can still keep his spot on here. Alan Omer is the first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, he has there twice out of his 19 fights but at least he has won a major title, according to Travis's page he has never won any championships, even from a deserving minor league within his 250+ wins. Again I don't claim to know better, but I do know when something isn't right, and any idiot with the gift of sight can see the flaws of this page. The criteria is set specifically to allow just the 'top tier' organisations to remain here and anyone else is put on shaky grounds, even if it's promotions like Cage Rage, EliteXC and BAMMA, who have clearly proved that their spot as a major promotion is/was truly earned. (BigzMMA 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

• I would take winning a world vale tudo championship (you somehow missed that in his fight record) and competing in both the UFC and WEC over winning a vacant title (hardly a world championship) at the second promotion of a new organization (and losing it at the next fight). If we only kept athletes who were current champions, we'd have to get rid of a lot of athlete's pages. Remember, notability is not temporary, so once you've reached the top you don't lose notability when you're no longer the best. Also, you might be interested to know that putting BAMMA in the top tier was discussed a few months ago and was rejected. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Papaursa To say that him being a Vale Tudo champion as a reason to keep him on Wikipedia as a MMA fighter is like apples and oranges, Vale Tudo is Vale Tudo and MMA is MMA, in the same way that I already said how Kickboxing is Kickboxing and Muay Thai is Muay Thai. Even though they all share similar routes, they are all considered their own, independent combat sports and that it don't matter if they cross over each other, if they are listed as one thing, they are that thing, even if they were successful at the other. You can keep saying that he is notable, however, by looking over the criteria currently written for Travis Fulton, it clearly shows that he only meets 1 out of all 3 of the criteria to support notability, as you keep stating as his safe keep card, he has fought for top tier promotions three time, and keep in mind he just barely gets that with ONLY three. He also meets one criteria that supports deletion, which is 'Few fights for notable organizations', which can be used as his overall MMA record shows out of exactly 307 professional MMA bouts only 3 have been in the UFC/WEC. His Vale Tudo/Boxing record doesn't count towards his defence, as these are different sports, as I clearly states earlier, and, just to point it out, despite all the information on his page - he has just FOUR (4) REFERENCES!! two of them are for his Vale Tudo/Boxing records (the boxing record is incomplete on the page and there nothing more about his Vale Tudo record other than just the number of fights he had), one is for his most recent - and probably his most famous fight in Andrei Arlovski, and the forth one dates back to 1999, as in, it was written in 1999, when he was 22 years old and according to the page his record was at the time 41 wins, 11 losses and 4 draws. If you look at his record on Wikipedia when he reaches 41 wins, it says that his record was 41 wins, 9 losses and 3 draws, and it looks like something a child would do on a word document for school work. There is no references to say anything more about his fight record, nothing else to back up his notability and statistically his only notable fights for notable promotions doesn't even cover 1% of his whole MMA record. His page is a JOKE, yet you defend it like he is more important than guys who actually wins major world titles. If you possibly think that this man deserves a place on here based on what is basically ONE criteria supporting notability, then I suggest you change you outlook on how you see what 'notable' is, because many of the guys you have called for deletion are just as notable in terms of meeting similar or the same criteria (some even meet more of them) as Fulton. There is no such thing as a 'trump card' system on here as far as I've seen with all the guidelines I've read, so no-one is more immune than other in the same/similar position just because they have fought three times for one or more top tier promotions out of 307, especially when the page itself is so poorly written and can be strongly considered as inaccurate as well as failing all the other criteria supporting notability.

I am very confused by what you meant when you said 'If we only kept athletes who were current champions, we'd have to get rid of a lot of athlete's pages.' I really don't how to approach this line as it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I have not implied that only champions should keep their positions on here. If a guy has won a top/second tier major title, then that person rightfully deserves to keep his position on here, a point that your using at this minute to defend Travis Fulton from facing deletion, but what I have written above, I don't think you'd doubt me at all nor keep the same standpoint if you actually read it all, and gone over it with a fine tooth comb. In the end, if you won a title for any of the top/second tier organisations that you have listed on here, then you'd know that anyone who wins any of those promotions major belts are instantly notable for Wikipedia, no matter how few time they fought for them, or even how short their reign was. They would be a key point to bring up every time the promotion discusses their divisions and the champion, past and present. That is something you cannot diminish just by saying 'it was too early into the promotion's/fighter's history' Once they done it, they are always going to be recognised. The same can be said about Maurice Smith, who beat Mark Coleman to become the second UFC Heavyweight Champion, yet he lost it right away to Randy Couture, does that mean he's irrelevant? No, he is relevant because he is in the UFC's history, so no matter how many, or few times he's mentioned, he will always be mentioned. The same applies for Alan Omer

BAMMA is growing very rapidly, they are listed as the biggest European MMA promotion in the world, they have been nominated for the Promotion Of The Year award at the Fighters Only World MMA Awards (an award with other nominations including DREAM, Strikeforce, Bellator and the UFC), they have been mentioned on ESPN MMA Live on multiple occasions (if you seen the show, you'd know they only mention all top tier promotions only), they have top ranked fighters in their roster, there is always plenty of reliable articles for their events AND when they make big announcements, such as recently, when they announced their partnership with HDNet in America, Randy Couture is to appear at their next event to sign copies of his new book, the signings of Nate Marquardt and Jimi Manuwa, they have sponsorship deals with companies like Lonsdale. Unlike any other European promotions such as Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW) or even M-1 Global, BAMMA seems to be getting bigger and bigger in terms of popularity in the United States, outgrowing the two examples I just used. They meet ALL criteria supporting their notability on here. What more is there to say that can convince you that BAMMA's true place lies with the top tier organisations right now? Because I don't think it can be ignored, or pushed aside anymore when I say that BAMMA IS TOP TIER. If this still doesn't convince you that BAMMA's current position needs pushing up, the tell me exactly what is it that is not convincing you?

Just occurred to me that many interesting points I made whenever you commented about them (from either me saying them pointing them out or you saying them first) have gone unanswered, do I detect that you don't know how to address them, or is it that your agreeing with me by leaving them out of the conversations now? Not trying to make it sound like a 'personal attack' or anything of the sort but you do look weak right by not saying anything about my comments, especially the ones where I answered your comments. (BigzMMA 10:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Its just when you said things like 'an athlete have competed at the highest level of their sport' and 'It's not about how many minor league games you played in, it's about whether you were good enough to reach the top level.' and I brought up that brilliant comparison about that to what English Football (Soccer) does with the leagues here, you have not brought up an argument against what I said about that. If you just haven't read that yet, please scroll up the page and read what I have to say about this. As well as this you still haven't answered my question, why aren't EliteXC, Cage Rage and BAMMA considered top tier promotions? As I stated they meet ALL criteria supporting their presents on Wikipedia, they are/were clearly popular and media-friendly, lets be honest, way more recognised than the likes of 'Tachi Palace Fights' and 'Ring of Combat'. (BigzMMA)

• Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't. But thank you for inadvertently pointing out all the vandalism on Travis Fulton's page. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I find that you are being very rude refusing to answer my comments. I am here for the best interests of all MMA topics and that's why I am I am suggesting that the page gets updated and rewritten. I have made very interesting points and you have chose to ignore them, with most of them can be proved through online sources, such as how big Cage Rage/EliteXC's was and big BAMMA really is right now. I would like to help make this page BETTER, not WORSE, which is why I have brought up the points I have, used multiple promotions/fighters as examples of why they should/shouldn't be on Wikipedia if they continue to follow this system that is in place. Now I am still interested in working with you, however, you must stop saying that I am one-minded, from my suggested layout below, I have kept in line with some of your criteria and kept they layout, which shows that I do agree with you to certain perspective, but I still strongly feel that this page needs improvements (and looking up the page, it's clear I'm not the only one who finds the criteria too harsh), and I want you to help me do that, not fight me at every corner of each suggestion. So may we please now find a way to help improve this page? This is not me backing down, just trying to avoid going back around in circle with you. (BigzMMA 10:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Recommended change to current notability system

Here is what I have in mind as a possible change to the current system, which at the moment is currently flawed and could do with a major shake up. I doubt that it will answer all the problems with the system at the moment or even create new problems, however, the good thing about this talk page is that we call get together and make it more accurate before finalising it. Please imagine from what you read on is actually on the page and everything you see is meant to be there

Trump Card System must be abandoned

Now some people are wondering what I mean by a 'Trump Card System', well it simple really, everyone knows the Top Trump card game, where theres always a card that statically beats another card in one area of the stats of the card (for example, say theres a Brock Lesnar card and a Alistair Overeem card, Brock would have a higher score on grappling but Overeem would have a higher striking score).

Well this system is currently being used to decide whether a promotion/fighter is notable or not through the criteria, and it seems that certain criteria are used to decide if they are more notable because of a certain criteria. I have noticed that fighters/promotion who meet at least one criteria to keep it on Wikipedia, for example, a fighter has been 'Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations', yet they may not of competed in, say, the UFC and they haven't won a major title in MMA and they can be considered for deletion. Now if a fighter has not had multiple articles written about him nor won any major world titles, yet they have competed in the UFC at least once, they seem to be immune from any conversation that calls for the page to be deleted. This make me think that, despite all these criteria are set clearly to say whos notable, there seems to be some criteria that is more notable than others, which is unacceptable. I strongly disagree with this system and that any promotion or fighter who meets at least one criteria to keep them should make them just as immune. Remember Wikipedia isn't runned on limited space so it isn't as if we need to cut back on space, even if there was limited space on here, I don't think MMA topics is running the highest bill right now. Anything that meets at least one criteria and doesn't meet too many criteria for deletion shouldn't be considered for deletion, even if the promotion isn't UFC or the fighter isn't there or hasn't been there yet. BigzMMA 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that you are simply not understanding Notability as it is employed on Wikipedia (and it is possible that a couple of other editors are having a similar problem). The base standard for notability is WP:GNG - subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. If a topic has this, then it is always notable in Wikipedia terms. In addition to this, certain standards have been developed for such as sports people, academics etc, which contain a presumption that if a person has eg played for their country, been awarded a University Chair etc, that they will be notable and will have, or will acquire, the coverage as defined in WP:GNG.

What should be noted by both yourself and anyone nominating an article for deletion is that the project standards do not trump WP:GNG. If a topic has significant coverage in independent sources it can reasonably expect to retain an article, even if it does not meet a project standard. At the moment, cage fighters and professional wrestlers fall under WP:ENTERTAINER (although I believe the project is trying to come up with its own standards, which it can submit to the community), so if your fighter either -

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (I believe the large competitions you are describing would fall under these descriptions)

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

And you can evidence this with references to independent sources, then there should be no problems in retaining the article. Your deleted articles were very light on independent sources - anything that relies only on press releases and advertising is going to struggle to demonstrate notability.

I hope this helps.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your say Elen of the Roads, I appreciate the honesty and the unbiased approach you took. I always understood the WP:GNG guide and have always done my best to make all pages I created follow it. I find that the criteria on this page is actually countering this policy, as fighters who follow the basic notable guide has had national/international attention and coverage, but some people believe that one or two criteria beats that, which seems to be whether or not they had at least one fight in a 'top tier' promotion. I would have to disagree with you with one thing though, and that is when you said that mixed martial artists should fall under WP:ENTERTAINER, as MMA fighters are sports athletes first before entertainers, though there isn't a part on Wikipedia:Notability (sports) that says anything about MMA, though certain martial arts such as Boxing and Sumo are on that page so I may get into the discussion on that to have MMA added in.

• I admit that for many of the articles I did not add much detail into it and add in references to back them up, but because I was putting up so many well known fighters across the United Kingdom, as well as recognised faces such as Reagan Penn I thought I'd start off the page by putting in basic information, including MMA record and basic referenced information on them, and then once I done that, I pretty much created a 'snow ball' effect where everyone else who writes for Wikipedia can add to it and add the references and all. That is what happened with some of my created pages like Jimi Manuwa and Cory Tait so I'd assumed that at least most of those pages would of had some people adding information and references to them to make them better. It wasn't that I was too lazy to do them, I just had so many created and I just didn't have the time, plus trying to save the UCMMA/Cage Rage UK main page took up all my time on here before I was blocked throughout the rest of the time the debate continued until the was deleted the day before I was unblocked.

• But anyway, thanks again for the advice, hopefully we can all learn something on here BigzMMA 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Fighter(s) article(s) needing deletion if we're gonna follow WP:MMA to the T

Okay let's see:

Criteria supporting notability:

• Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations
• Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization
• Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations

That is according to this project page. Now what about fighters like Papy Abedi ?? He has only ONE (1) fight in the UFC yet has an article. Hell, the article was made even before he got in. So what makes him notable with simply one fight, if we're gonna follow this?

KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

FIANLLY, someone whos talking sense :D well then, if users want to follow this system to the T, then I say lets follow every point to meet criteria then? So KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP, if you'd like to nominate some pages to begin with I will gladly put my input into it, and decide if it meets ALL criteria set on this page. BigzMMA (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, so it doesn't appear to pass the WP:MMANOT standard, however he does appear to pass the WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG tests so it's not a failing with the needlelike focused MMANOT, it's a success of the graduated notability system. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know anyone who would claim every MMA fighter and organization listed on WP is notable. If you think someone or something is not notable, then put the article up for AfD. That's how WP decides on these things--community discussion and consensus. Papaursa (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet he can be nominated for deletion through this system Hasteur, if the AfD cases I showed you before doesn't prove that people are putting WP:MMANOT over other, more important systems like WP:GNG, then does this? He has had only one UFC fight, and it is simply because of this and the articles that relates to him through only this event that can still make him considered to keep him on here through GNG, yet MMANOT says otherwise, but people are choosing rather than following the system they want to imply on the fighter. There are users out there who actually don't give much consideration for policies, guidelines and rules outside the ones they accept the most, and this is one that people are choosing to follow the most!

This is exactly what I mean when I say this guideline is very misleading and strict, as it doesn't allow all pages to remain on here, yet similar pages in terms of accomplishments, how many times they fought or even how many articles are there on him/her, because as I said before, a trump card system is very much in place and people are currently choosing a page that has just one single top tier promotion fight as the winning card over another page that has multiple articles on the person. BigzMMA (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Organizations

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It should be noted that some organisations are bigger in other countries than you know, such as Cage Rage, who is recognised overall as the biggest MMA promotion in the UK and have been in national newspapers and mainstream sports channels, whereas the United States may not have heard of it, so please look fully for information on a promotion carefully before deciding yourself whether that MMA promotion really is un-notable.

Criteria supporting notability

1. Subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national media (across the country) or international media (across the world), not just local coverage (such as the village or city it was held in).
2. Has/Have been actively in business and promotes events for a minimum of three years to the date of it's first event - unless the company has gain tremendous popularity within timeframe.
3. Past/Present champions of promotion has been the subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from either national media or international media, not just local coverage.
4. Well-known fighters are/have competed for the company, an overall minimum of 12 since first three years of first event.
5. If information can be found on the promotion's event's results without going to the company's website. Google search is useful and even websites that purely cover MMA related topics can be seen as reliable.

If a promotion meets at least half of these, then they will be considered notable.

Criteria supporting deletion

If the page in question meets WP:GNG, then there is no need to look at this section.

1. Has only promoted three or less events in existence.
2. Short history as an organization.
3. Few notable fighters fight in their events.
4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts.
5. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies.

Fighters

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Again, fighter can be more popular at different parts of the world to the country you live in, such as Tom 'Kong' Watson is very well known across the UK, whereas the United States may not of heard much/anything about him.

Amateur MMA fighters are not considered notable (unless they can pass WP:GNG under other criteria).

Criteria supporting notability

1. Subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations. (Also worth noting that any fighters who are on the same event who gets coverage on the same articles can count as notable)
2. Fought for the highest title of a top/second tier MMA organisation
3. Won the highest title of a top/second tier MMA organisation
4. Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations, or five (5) fights under a second tier organisation without having to compete for a top tier organisation.

If a fighter meets at least half of these, they will be recognised as notable.

Also worth noting that any fighter who makes his name from a second tier orgaisation, that has reliable, independent information available for him/her can be considered a notable fighter.

Criteria supporting deletion

If the page in question meets WP:GNG, then there is no need to look at this section.

1. Only amateur/semi pro bouts
2. Few fights for notable organizations.

Current list of notable MMA promotions

Keep in mind again that some promotions you may not have heard of nor can watch or get coverage for can be every well known in different parts of the world, such as Bellator, who does not get shown in the UK, but is strongly considered a top tier MMA organisation by Americans.

Top Tier

Affliction Entertainment (now defunct)

Bellator Fighting Championships

British Association of Mixed Martial Arts (BAMMA)

Cage Rage Championships (now defunct)

DREAM

Elite XC (now defunct)

Pride Fighting Championships (now defunct)

ProElite

Shooto

Strikeforce

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)

World Extreme Cagefighting (WEC) (now defunct)

World Victory Road: Sengoku Raiden Championship (now defunct)

M-1 Global

Second Tier

Cage Rage UK/UCMMA

Cage Warriors

DEEP

Jungle Fight Championship

King of the Cage (KOTC)

Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW)

Maximum Fighting Championship (MFC)

Pancrase

Ring of Combat

Shark Fights

Palace Fighting Championship (now defunct)

Tachi Palace Fights

Titan Fighting Championships

This is the best system I have, which again I will state will not be perfect, but the great idea about what I'm doing is that we can all get together and make it better so that we can end up putting it up as the official system to check MMA promotions/fighters notability. Thank you for reading this, hope we can all work to improve this page (BigzMMA 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

• You should realize that the current system was created by everyone coming together and reaching a consensus. Organizations have been added that way. You seem to be unhappy about the results reached by consensus because fighters and organizations you want have been found wanting by this process. Therefore, you're advocating changing everything to suit you. Papaursa told you that BAMMA was discussed a few months ago and it was decided, by consensus, not to move it to the top tier. BTW, neither Papaursa nor I voiced an opinion on that. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have not changed this 'to suit myself' as you keep saying, I have suggested these changes as one or two users (look up the page to see who) feel that the page makes it too difficult for other promotions/fighters to keep their spots on here. Also if you read what Elen of the Roads says at the bottom of the page, she implies that no matter how this page is laid out, that WP:MMANOT doesn't even matter so long as the promotion/fighter meets WP:GNG and can prove it. So if we keep to the criteria of this page (which really is too harsh on even the second tier promotions), or changing them for what I'm offering to soften the criteria for promotion/fighter growth, so long as the page at least meets WP:GNG, it doesn't really matter whether they are the UFC, or BAMMA or ProElite for promotions or fighters such as Chuck Liddell, Tom 'Kong' Watson or Reagan Penn, so long as there is enough coverage on them they should have a spot on Wikipedia. So like I said at the bottom, I believe we can all learn something here and agree that something needs to change somewhere here. Question my suggestions to your hearts content, but the truth is that no-one here, even me, has had the right answer, as it doesn't matter if you fought in the UFC, or if your Alistair Overeem, as enough media coverage will give you a spot on Wikipedia, no matter how big or small the promotion/fighter is. BigzMMA 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)
• Of course WP:GNG trumps everything else. That's in the guidelines and has been reiterated many times. That's why 9 fighters just survived an AfD discussion despite lacking the number of fights specified. The point is that consensus rules and so far you seem to want to ignore the consensus opinion on fighters and organizations. After things like UCMMA were voted on, you promptly reposted the article because you claimed to know best--"I don't think anyone who participated in the debate really understood." Astudent0 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• So why must I keep having to defend guys like Alan Omer, Tim Newman and Reagan Penn when they meet WP:GNG? Please reword 'consensus opinion on fighter and organisations.' Cant understand what you mean by it.

The short answer is that they didn't meet WP:GNG in the opinions of most of the people--that's what consensus is. Astudent0 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• And I did not repost the UCMMA page because 'I knew best'. UCMMA is a notable organisation, as there are many articles on it under its current and previous names such as 'Ultimate Challenge UK', 'Ultimate Challenge MMA (UCMMA)' and now 'Cage Rage UK'. It is the only MMA promotion shown on Sky Sports in the UK, which is without a doubt the biggest sporting channel in the UK, which airs the Premier League, NFL amongst other major sports. Ask anyone from the UK and they will tell you Sky Sport is the most recognised sports channel here. So if a MMA promotion is shown here, there will be articles about it. It shows their chat show on there (again reliable sources can be found about it), they have had fighters under them ranging from Neil Grove, Mark Weir and Brad Pickett, to James McSweeney, John Maguire (fighter) and Jimi Manuwa. There are plenty of articles about each of their events from when they are shown, and everyone in the UK agrees that UCMMA is in the top 3 MMA promotions in the UK, along side BAMMA and Cage Warriors. Once again all facts, all easy enough to find through Google.

So basically it wasn't researched and no-one particularly looked into it, so I ask of you to look up the promotion again, this time use all the names used by the promotion, and to look under the 'News' search, which is on the right column where it says 'Everything' and look under that until you see 'News'. Also make sure whatever you type, before you click on 'News', to add " at the beginning of the first word and the end of the last word so it will look for the full name collected for more accurate results. I promise you that you will find many results on UCUK/UCMMA/Cage Rage UK. Matter of fact, I will give you the link to save you time -

1. http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22ucmma%22&pbx=1&oq=%22ucmma%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12056l12056l2l12276l1l1l0l0l0l0l142l142l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=711679b2427ab5c5&biw=1024&bih=677 - the Google search result you get for UCMMA, and one article you maybe interested in is this next one

1. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/934886-the-uk-mma-community-unites-to-positively-portray-the-noble-martial-arts - Prove how big UCMMA are consider on 'the other side of the pond'. I will also give you this one as well to prove the UCMMA-Sky Sports deal exists

1. http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/wrestling-wwe-ufc-mma/2010/07/ucmma-and-sky-sports-partner-u.html

Remember, the promotion doesn't have to be the most well known, nor the most recognised, so long as there is plenty of reliable and notable sources on them they can have a spot on Wikipedia, enjoy reading them. BigzMMA 20:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

URCC was just added to the second tier of events and it's been around for a decade. Organizations get added when it can be shown there is significant independent coverage. Here's a suggestion--recreate the UCMMA article in your sandbox and make sure it has good independent sources. Then ask some of the veteran MMA editors to look and comment on it. People would rather add than delete articles, but you have to show them notability and independent sources. Be aware that articles that just report results do not support notability (see WP:ROUTINE). Astudent0 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay then I will do that, however, I will say when it is ready to be seen, so then you and other editors will be able to read it. BigzMMA 09:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Changes to the event section

I have reverted the change to the event section as it could be interpreted to change the meaning, while I can see where the editor is coming from, I think we need a discussion on expanding the section to make it clearer, in line with other Event notability guidelines that just having sources is not in and of its self sufficient, an article needs to demonstrate the events historical and encyclopaedic significance. Mtking ^(edits) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no complaints with OSU's modification. While I did not participate in the discussions of the creation of this essay, I did monitor those discussions when they occurred. I believe the intent was to say that "MMA events are not inherently (WP:INHERENT) notable". Some editors believe that UFC events are automatically notable because it is a UFC event, or that an event is notable because it has notable fighters participating, etc. This, I belive, is wrong. Events and articles about the events may be notable if they comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT, etc). --TreyGeek (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I perhaps should have made my thinking clearer, in and of it's self I have no issue with the wording, however I can see how others might use the change to twist the meaning of the section, and so to avoid that, I think a more detailed re-wording might be appropriate  :

Individual events are not inherently considered notable because on the whole the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the events lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

Mtking ^(edits) 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support of MtKing's expansion of MMA event notability section. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I also support MtKing's modificiation of the MMA event notability section. I must admit that, at the time this essay was written, the issue of concern was fighter notability, not event notability, so most of the discussion was about fighters (with some additional discussion about organizations). Papaursa (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• I support the modification proposed above. It includes the word "inherently", which was missing IMO. The detailed explanation in the second half of this sentence seems consistent with wiki guidelines. I'm not in favor of deleting event articles for top-tier promotions, but I do feel that this change is at least an improvement over the existing wording and addresses the change I made to the notability guidelines that was reverted by the editor who started this thread. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Need for mediation

if possible, can we get a neutral party informal mediation or something for this issue? Teamsleep (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is at ANI where it getting some mediation now. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Kitchen Sink Concept

There is some merit to throwing everything into the main omnibus article as a short term solution until the sub articles are created for each organization. Anna and others have been wanting this, and it will solve a few problems, particularly since many are warming up to the omnibus article now that they see it really is better. In the long run, we want the primary omnibus article to be shorter than that and have more summary and prose than stats, but this will preserve the info and it can then be merged into the sub articles. This supports the idea I have been talking about since the beginning: The top omnibus article will eventually be very general and cover links to all subpages and have prose that talks about the year in general, plus touch on the most notable matches, ie: a summary of the year overall in the sport (but likely not the future events unless they are properly sourced). The subpages for each organization will eventually have all the tables and stats plus other detailed information, and future events. I won't argue one way or the other, just saying I see the logic in doing this. The top article talks about the most important events in that year in the sport, the subs talk about the actual events in detail, and this will keep the pages a manageable size, yet still pretty big. Then the exact design and layout ideas can be worked out based on the content, and it will allow a little more time for discussion anyway. It appears that tempers are simmering down a bit and that more real work is getting done, which is great. The key at this point is get the main omnibus article DONE with the info, then create the subs for the different organizations. You already have 2012 started, and once the main and subs are done, that can be used as a template for the other ideas. There are some bugs to work out, such as using flag icons or not (WP:MOSFLAG says don't use them, but I'm going to stay out of that and let the regular editors discuss that among themselves, as that is more about content than policy). The above discussions look like everyone is starting with a clean slate, which is exactly what is needed. We are all on the same side, even if our ideas are different, and it looks like everyone is beginning to work with that in mind. Since I don't edit content here and came to help the transition, I would like to step back just a little and let you guys work out the details, but feel free to ask me anything on my talk page if you like. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I agree. When you say "subpages" do you mean {{main}} articles? If so, then yes, juice up the omni, then offload to main articles later. Pardon the jargon. Kitchen sinking the omni now will show visitors that info is not lost. When the redirects are restored, and all eyes are on the omni, the first thing they will look for is missing info.

As for the omni eventually being summary as prose, fine, as long as valued content is not booted, but is instead moved to a main article. I do, however, smell trouble down the road if there is an attempt to eventually limit the scope of the omni and delete content instead of moving it elsewhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am meaning mains. I was confused at first because I'm looking at it from a different direction, starting at the omni and working into more specific, but now I get what you are saying, and yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. I outline it below, but I think we would do good to set some standards about what each level should or shouldn't include, to insure that each year and subsection will be consistent and that editors will have some guidance when adding content. And I agree with your assessment, which is why I said to put everything in the omni articles for now, but with the goal of moving the more detailed info down the line (or up the line) as they are created. This is why it is important to have a defined and agreed upon structure ahead of time, even if we violate that in the short run until the more specific articles are created. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Outline

Here is what I'm thinking, which is in line with the other conversations above. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the names of the articles or how you should break them down, just the raw structure.

• "2012 in mixed martial arts events" (primary omnibus, summaries and prose, few if any tables, summary of the MMA that year in general with highlights of the most important developments in MMA as a whole)
  • "2012 in UFC events" (sub level 1, most notable stats only, short summaries in prose, sourced commentary, overview of UFC for that year including highlights, also lists future events briefly)
    • "2012 in UFC on FX events" (sub level 2, full level of stats and details, also lists future)
    • "2012 in UFC on Fox events" (sub level 2, full level of stats and details, also lists future)
    • "2012 in UFC on Fuel TV events" (sub level 2, full level of stats and details, also lists future)
      • "UFC Whatever" (individual article, for those that pass WP:GNG, would have the full level of detail, plus the other sourced reviews and any other content, etc.)

And again...I'm not stuck on this, I just think it makes sense to have some kind of structure that gets more detailed as you move toward the more specific articles. The main and Level 1 articles will have many more events listed, so keeping the information shorter and more general keeps the articles from getting too large and confusing, and they link to the sub level 2 articles, which have the fewest events but the highest level of details, all on one convenient page. This is exactly what you have above, I'm just defining the rolls of the different levels. It can be tweaked or completely changed from what I have here, but having each level clearly defined will keep it consistent across years and give the entire system better flow and readability. Consistency is the key here. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Results Table

This is what I came up with:

Weight Class				Round	Time	Method
Featherweight Championship	(c) Jose Aldo	vs	Chad Mendes	1	4:59	Knockout (knees and punches)
Middleweight	Vitor Belfort	vs	Anthony Johnson	1	4:49	Submission (rear-naked choke)
Middleweight	Rousimar Palhares	vs	Mike Massenzio	1	1:03	Submission (knee switch)
Middleweight	Erick Silva	vs	Carlo Prater	1	0:29	Disqualification (blows to the neck)
Lightweight	Edson Barboza	vs	Terry Etim	3	2:02	Knockout (head kick)

The first problem I have is I don't know how I can incorporate fighter payout, and the second problem I have is I don't know how to align the fighter's names to the left of the boxes they are in. Gamezero05 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is another way to do it so that all of the fights are on one table:

Televised	Weight Class				Round	Time	Method
PPV	Featherweight Championship	(c) Jose Aldo	vs	Chad Mendes	1	4:59	Knockout (knees and punches)
PPV	Middleweight	Vitor Belfort	vs	Anthony Johnson	1	4:49	Submission (rear-naked choke)
PPV	Middleweight	Rousimar Palhares	vs	Mike Massenzio	1	1:03	Submission (knee switch)
PPV	Middleweight	Erick Silva	vs	Carlo Prater	1	0:29	Disqualification (blows to the neck)
PPV	Lightweight	Edson Barboza	vs	Terry Etim	3	2:02	Knockout (head kick)
FX	Lightweight	Thiago Tavares	vs	Sam Stout	3	5:00	unanimous decision (29-28, 29-28, 29-28)
FX	Heavyweight	Gabriel Gonzaga	vs	Ednaldo Oliveira	1	3:22	Submission (rear-naked choke)
FX	Featherweight	Yuri Alcantara	vs	Michihiro Omigawa	3	5:00	unanimous decision (30-27, 29-28, 30-27)
FX	Welterweight	Mike Pyle	vs	Ricardo Funch	1	1:22	TKO (knees and punches)
Facebook	Featherweight	Felipe Arantes	vs	Antonio Carvalho	3	5:00	unanimous decision (29-28, 29-28, 29-28)

Gamezero05 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The center alignment issue for the fighter names is coming from the use of the {{yes2}} and {{no2}} templates. Perhaps have the first column for winners and second column for the loser. It would also resolve the question of which fighter goes in which column. I might also suggest having the fighters listed first in the table and other information (weight class, card) later in the table as the focus should be on the fighters. Also, add a notes column because there may be instances where other explanation is needed. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason I didn't put winners in one column and losers in the other is that it seems like it would be a lot of work to edit that information back in after an event instead of just filling in the missing boxes. For example, look below at the table for the upcoming UFC in Sweden. You can't label one column winner and loser because the event has yet to happen. And often times, the results are filled in immediately following the individual fights, so some fights that haven't even happened yet would be listed under the win column.Gamezero05 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That could work, but the old one works as well, whichever is decided doesnt matter I guess. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment on Gamezero05's talk page about the alignment problems. TreyGeek has it exactly correct. There is, fortunately, a parameter you can pass for both templates to set the alignment if needed. See the first table for an example. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw what you did. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a table for the upcoming UFC on Fuel TV card that has yet to be filled in with results:

Televised	Weight Class				Round	Time	Method	Notes
Fuel TV	Light Heavyweight	Alexander Gustafsson	vs	Thiago Silva
Fuel TV	Middleweight	Brian Stann	vs	Alessio Sakara
Fuel TV	Welterweight	Paulo Thiago	vs	Siyar Bahadurzada
Fuel TV	Featherweight	Dennis Siver	vs	Diego Nunes
Fuel TV	Welterweight	DaMarques Johnson	vs	John Maguire
Fuel TV	Bantamweight	Brad Pickett	vs	Damacio Page
	Welterweight	Papy Abedi	vs	James Head
	Light Heavyweight	Cyrille Diabate	vs	Jörgen Kruth
	Middleweight	Francis Carmont	vs	Magnus Cedenblad
	Lightweight	Reza Madadi	vs	Yoislandy Izquierdo
	Welterweight	Simeon Thoresen	vs	Besam Yousef
	Featherweight	Jason Young	vs	Eric Wisely

Any suggestions? Thoughts? Gamezero05 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The table form is a vast improvement, however the issue with the flags is still there, WP:MOSFLAG is clear we should not use them as the fighters are not competing in any form of representative capacity, I find the argument that a fighter born in a given country have a different style to be tenuous, the style is more likely to be related to country of residence which is not the same as nationality anyway. Mtking ^(edits) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• My reading of WP:MOSFLAG is the same as yours Mtking, and I've offered to seek an outside opinion on it, but not everyone has warmed up to that idea. I think that before we remove any flags, we need an objective, experienced editor or two to weigh in and offer their opinion. If everyone doesn't agree after that, we can always go to dispute resolution, but leaving it as is for now is likely a less confrontational way of handling it in the short run. I'm going to just to ahead and get an outside opinion from someone I am sure is an expert on MOS issues, and if he says they are fine, then swell. If he says they aren't, perhaps he can provide more background info that will help us all understand why it isn't. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could get into a debate here on why I disagree with removing the flags, but I think this issue is better suited for another time. I think the focus should be getting this omnibus working and get into a debate about flags after this is done with. Gamezero05 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• As for the table, I would still suggest a notes column to allow for a space for things such as specifying a championship bout or other special situation. (Similar to the MMA fighter record tables.) As mentioned before, my preference would be to place the weight class column and possibly the "televised" column to the right somewhere, to allow the left-most columns focus on the fighters. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding a notes column. But I disagree about moving the weight class and televised columns to the right of the fighters. I think it makes the most sense how it is since we read from left to right. You should get smaller as you move to the right. So televised shows the order of the card. Weight class gets smaller to show the more specific weights that are fighting. Then it gets more specific to show which fighters. Then it gets more specific to show which round the fight was won. Then more specific to show the time the round ended. Then more specific to show what ended the fight. Gamezero05 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis asked me to comment about flags. The MOS is unambiguous that they should not be used here: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. " In these events, the people , as I understand it , compete as individuals. Personally, I think in general we tend to overuse such icons, and the burden should be on showing them to be helpful DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) .

I've stated why it is helpful: "Fighters from different countries have different styles of fighting. If you see two fighters who you aren't familiar with, and then see that one has a Brazilian flag and one has a Dutch flag, you immediately think "ok, Jiu Jitsu vs. Kickboxing". Also, it is interesting to see the flags next to a fighter's name when events are held outside of the United States. For example, when the UFC goes to Sweden, as they are in the very near future, the UFC often signs fighters in the country they are going to to fight on that card. It is helpful to see how many new Swedish fighters are fighting on the Swedish card, especially since they will be unfamiliar since it will likely be their first fight in the UFC. Or when the UFC goes to Japan, it is helpful to see how many Japanese fighters are fighting. It is just a lot easier, a lot more helpful, and it is pertinent to prize-fighting." Gamezero05 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no strong feelings about it one way or another, but in the table header, would "Network" be a better alternative than "Televised"? Just a thought. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a more generic term such as "Card" should be used? Something to keep in mind is that not all MMA events are televised and some are streamed across the Internet. 2012 in Super Fight League events were streamed entirely on YouTube. Jewels 18th Ring (also mentioned at 2012 in mixed martial arts events#Jewels) had no broadcast, to my knowledge, but still differentiated its card between preliminary and main. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Informal and nonbinding poll

Just to get a feel where everyone's head is. This is non binding and informal ONLY, the goal isn't a debate yet, just a straw poll and will not decide anything. We can have a formal !vote later if needed, so you aren't bound to what you vote here. Just say Support under the one you prefer and sign, leaving the others blank. If you have a better idea, put that idea under the Other section instead. I would let this run several days before drawing any conclusions. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events

• Support --TreyGeek (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Gamezero05 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, consistent with the many other 2012 in X articles that is the apparent standard. -- Ravensfire (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I don't oppose the other alternative, but as per Ravensfire, it does look like this form is more prevalent at WP. Mtking ^(edits) 02:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC events in 2012

• Support -- Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- JadeSnake (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)