Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A Little Question & Suggestion

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments13 people in discussion

First of all, I'm not sure this is the right way to do it, so feel free to move this question to an appropriate place. I'm also not an experienced "discusser" about these topics, sorry if I get anything wrong.

I'll go by an example to make myself clear. After a lot of reading including the AfD discussions, I still don't understand why UFC 148, an event that features 1 regular and 1 interim title fight, is not notable? I support most of the arguments for FOX (except 1), FX and Fuel events, but 148 is an event which includes a title fight with a big feud between the #1 P4P fighter and his biggest rival, and an interim title fight which is important because the injury of the champion.

So, I think declaring UFC (and maybe Strikeforce) events with title fights notable will make us move forward to solve this situation. Opinions? Zeggy 557 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that the title fights you suggest are notable. The outcomes change a number of things and the winners are likely to have past success and future success. I think it follows other guidelines related to sports on WP.Factseducado (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that writing such a clause that says "UFC (and possibly Strikeforce) are top tier competition fights and are notable" is the best way to solve the current problem. We pretty much had that as an unwritten rule until UFC articles started getting taken down or forced into a merge against the wishes of the users of said articles.

The AfD nominations seem to be based on two things- failure of WP:EVENT, and failure of WP:NOT. The reason UFC events "fail" WP:EVENT is supposedly because it's just routine coverage. However, if you read JUST WP:ROUTINE, every single sports event fails. Read to the letter, even Superbowl articles should fail for being routine coverage seeing as how it's a pre-planned sports event and most coverage ends a day or two after the game. What saves them is the fact that they are given inherent notability.

As for MMA events failing WP:NOT, I find that to be highly subjective. At this point, notability cannot be disproven going by current guidelines. As I said, every single sports events gets routine coverage, so that's not paticularly a good criteria. On the flip side, every single fight (with an event being at least 8-10 fights) has a lasting effect due to the matchmaking and ranking processes in MMA. Remember, most sports have pre-set schedules (you know the next 5 season matches your favorite NFL team will have regardless of winning or losing), but an MMA fighter's next fight depends entirely on the outcome of their last few fights. So how do you prove that the absolute top level of international MMA competition isn't notable? Zeekfox (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you scroll up someone posted a link earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Individual_games_or_series) which states that championship matches are inherently notable but some felt this did not apply to MMA events. I don't really understand which policies and guidelines supersede others if there is a conflict. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am personally open to the idea of a championship fight can be a criteria for notability for a top-tier promotion; lesser promotions not so much. I also think another notability criteria should be that the articles cite sources outside of MMA-related media. I also firmly believe that WP:SPORTSEVENT should be followed; specifically "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." That prose should discuss more than routine announcements of injuries and fight announcements or changes and should discuss the significance of the event to explain why it is/was notable. (Examples: Greasing controversy at UFC 94, first ever submissions of Nogiera(sp?) and Machida at UFC 140.) --TreyGeek (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe well-sourced prose is one of the more important components that must be present for individual events to warrant having their own respective article. As a basis for comparison, (not an WP:OSE argument), I would like to call attention to the 2012 Food City 500 and the 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix.

The former is an article for a Nascar event that was held in March of 2012. This artcile contains two sentences of prose and incomplete tables of statistics. It is hard to believe that this article hasn't been nominated for deletion.

The latter in an article for a Formula One event held within a week of the aforementioned Nascar event. Notice the differences between the two articles; this artcile for a sports event contains ample prose that provides a complete narrative of the significant events that occurred prior, during, and after the race.

My point? While I do support the inclusion of individual articles for top-tier events, I think it is imperative that these articles look like the 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix rather than the 2012 Food City 500. I had commented earlier that I felt JJB's approach was the most pragmatic thus far (and still do), but I also have to agree with TreyGeek above regarding the inclusion of well-sourced prose from various sources, including those outside of MMA-related media. None but shining hours (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that a lot of this "well-sourced prose" ends up on the pages of the individual fighters, rather than being placed on the page of the event. For example, the UFC 144 page does not mention that "Rampage" Jackson missed weight due to injury and is considering retirement after his fight with Ryan Bader. Instead, that information is source here- Quinton_Jackson#Post_title_shot where it is more relevant to the fighter themself than the entire night's worth of events. Though it's perfectly feasible to add such things to the event page as well. In this case, the best thing to do would be to ask for more prose for pages rather than to force them into the omnibus article where expanding upon them beyond a summary becomes impossible due to length and size restrictions. Zeekfox (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whether to call it "unfortunate" or not, but this same discussion's come up up before numerous times with little resolution. From what I've seen, in general the same parties more or less vote as they've done previously with little new depth of understanding, so unless there's some shocking new insight things it will likely go the same way. To summarize, there's some ambiguity in the rules which allows some AfD's to slip through. Unless those are cleared up in novel ways, there's no movement here. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps wikipedia's essay on WP:Overzealous deletion is relevant to this discussion? 24.70.78.42 (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The essay makes sense, but it's not "policy". The fundamental problem is that even though the reason for AfDing individual elements in a cohesive set is against the principle of GNG (and therefore against 5 pillars), it can pass on a technically against the specific wording. In essence, you're trying to convince people who live on the letter of the law to consider its design intent, and that's not an argument you're going to win on a personal level. It also doesn't really matter if you get lucky with an admin who sees the bigger picture, since the value of the sum of the set is diminished with removed with any deletions, so cheaply created AfDs against many elements only have to win some of the time to create the same effect. There are other arguments for consistency in inclusion and whatnot, but they require some nuanced understanding instead of crude generalizations (eg OTHERSTUFF), which is severely lacking atm. Agent00f (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The intent wasn't to be entirely pessimistic, because in reality the solution lies with more convincing voices in terms of popularity rather than the argument itself. Agent00f (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent, I am not sure what you mean by "AfDing individual elements in a cohesive set is against the principle of GNG". The General Notability Guidelines have nothing to do with the completeness of Wikipedia, it is a guideline to explain what should to be used to determine what should have an article on Wikipedia, and what should not have an article on Wikipedia. I can understand your meaning that deleting a few MMA events (particularly numbered events) will create a gap in coverage, and I can appreciate an Ignore All Rules argument in favour of keeping the numbered events to prevent the gap (if I agree or disagree with that use is neither here nor there, but I can still appreciate its use as an argument), however your logic connecting the GNG and the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is incorrect.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The GNG was created to delete "junk" articles. It was also created in the vacuum of considering individual entries. In those cases the spirit and the wording are aligned and there's no problem. For example, either the UFC as an org is notable or it's not. However, sports events entries which are part of a collective whole do not align with the words as originally written. One ufc in the sequential list DOESN'T stand on its own, since the consequences of each directly affect others, and as a whole they tell a narrative. The 5th pillar of wiki was created to remind us that these gaps between spirit and wording can exist, and to favor the former. "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording".

This isn't any kind of novel concept; this kind of discrepancy is inherent in law and the reason why judges exists to interpret language against reality. There's been increasingly sophisticated scholarly thinking on this through time (incl major breakthroughs in 20th cent. philosophy), but wiki isn't really the place to discuss nuances. Agent00f (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, as I said, your fifth pillar argument does have merit, regardless of if I think it is correct or not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it overzealous deletion as I have seen plenty of reasonable, policy-based arguments for both the inclusion and the deletion of individual events. The challenge is ultimately reconciling these policies; and it seems as if that is an impossible task. None but shining hours (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted just above, not all policy-based arguments are created equal in the context of the 5 pillars. Agent00f (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose they're not, but keep in mind that the policies do exist for a reason, and that they were adopted by the community based on consensus. I will assume you're primarily referring to WP:IAR, which as you know, is not a carte blanche to willfully disregard established policy. That being said, it does allow the community to interpret the letter versus the spirit of the law, if I may borrow from your post above. As I had mentioned, the community needs to reconcile several seemingly contradictory policies (at least as they relate to MMA) in order to determine the best way to move forward:

WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP are likely satisfied by most individual numbered UFC events. WP:EFFECT is likely also satisfied relative to the sport itself.
WP:SPORTSEVENT is ambigious as it does not cleanly apply to the structure of MMA. It appears as if many events involve "championship" fights and I am not sure if you can deem an event akin to a regular season game. Furthermore, its application cross-wiki is rather inconsistent; however, I believe most individual golf, tennis, racing, etc. events have been deemed notable enough to have stand-alone articles. UFC's structure is more similar to the aforementioned sports than team sports.
WP:NOT, specifically WP:FUTURE, explicitly excludes events that have yet to occur. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK increases the burden of editors to include ample well-sourced prose in the body of the article.
WP:ROUTINE and WP:PERSISTENCE are tough ones, though I believe WP:ROUTINE focuses more on the quality of WP:IRS and WP:PERSISTENCE likely exists more as a matter to exlude WP:SENSATION-type articles.
JJB's points regarding WP:SUMMARY WP:SPLITOUTS of notable WP:LISTS are also very worthy of consideration, especially since the WP:MAD option is very likely to result in a WP:TOOLONG article.

Editors will need to excuse my obvious ignorance regarding MMA in general, nonetheless, it would be encouraging to see the RfC get back on track in some way or the other. None but shining hours (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion of MMA at WT:NSPORTS which includes established editors who have not previously been part of the discussion here. It seems repetitive to hear there, here, and other places that for an individual MMA event to be notable enough for article it should have coverage from non-MMA-related sources that offers more than simple fight announcements and results. Then the article itself should contain well-sourced prose discussing the event and not just a list of fight results. I'm still not sure what the argument is against this approach other than it could result in some (not all) individual UFC event articles to be subject to deletion. Those individual events which are not notable can be included in an omnibus of some kind that summarizes a series of events notable and not. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I obviously did not realize such a discussion was taking place. For the record, as evidenced by my previous posts here, I 100% agree regarding the well-sourced prose requirement. None but shining hours (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that discussion and have commented within about the specific reasoning of sourcing. I've yet to receive a reply by which I can only assume others didn't find the argument disagreeable. As for prose, the ufc 140 entry that Treygeek worked diligently on to establish this seems to contain mostly restatement of results and play-by-play of contests that are meant to be watched for visual entertainment. For the most part I think we can avoid a lot of busywork across 200+ events in just one promotion if we simply include a guide on how to interpret match results and whatnot. Agent00f (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@NBSH, since you and perhaps others agree that per 5 pillars policies do have an intent over and above the lettering, I hope everyone else in discussions going fwd reference the spirit over semantics. A few brief replies:

It's worth pointing that the AfD nominators do not agree with your characterization of GNG and NTEMP above, as the former is often referenced in the nom.
Similar arguments previously about consistency across sports were generally dismissed as OTHERSTUFF. This clearly isn't the intent of OTHERSTUFF, but that's nothing surprising: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes", and more specifically this.
WP:FUTURE: "only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Consider the generally impeccable history of announced UFC event dates, and exact same notability as 200 or so existing entries. Also worth noting that the only relevant link referenced as valid from WP:NOTSTATSBOOK has NO prose.
These two are challenges for expanding wiki to any broader scope of historical record. Frankly IMO if millions of people have interest in something, it's imprudent to exclude out of hardline interpretation of statutory rhetoric. This is true for all TV shows, Movies, and general entertainment (incl sports) which are by their nature somewhat more transient than scientific theories or whatnot.

Thanks for you well considered and reasoned comments. Agent00f (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I definitely agree that the fifth pillar states as much. To your points:

I will stand by my assertion that most numbered UFC events would likely satisfy the WP:GNG. That being said, I am not too familiar with the previous AfD nominations, and as such, cannot speak to the individual merit of each of them. I would tend to think that the articles are being deleted based on WP:EVENT-related rationale, as there seems to be enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG.
Due to the ambiguity of WP:SPORTSEVENT, I was using the other sports as a basis for comparison in terms of the structure of the sport, not as a policy-based rationale for inclusion. I felt that due to its structure, major UFC events should be covered in a manner similar to those sports. I believe this issue is/was being discussed at the link that TreyGeek posted above.
RE:WP:FUTURE, a "generally impeccable history" notwithstanding, I believe both the letter and the intent of the policy is to prevent non-encyclopedic articles from being created far in advance, especially when events have yet to receive significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I believe the omnibus or a future UFC events article would serve as an effective "incubator" for said articles until the requisite inclusion criteria is met. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I sincerely doubt that articles for yet-to-occur UFC events could survive AfD's.
I believe that improved coverage of notable topics, such as UFC, would ultimately be a net positive for WP. That being said, I think it comes down to improving the coverage. I feel that while UFC 140 is a good article, UFC 144 requires quite a bit of improvement. WP is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should contain encylopedic entries. I probably sound like a broken record, but well-sourced prose that demonstrates the event's notability would likely do wonders for those who wish to include articles on individual numbered UFC events. While the interest of millions of people is not necessarily a rationale for inclusion, it does at least indirectly hint at notability as independent secondary sources are much more likely to cover a topic that is of interest to that many people.

None but shining hours (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Another round: :)

We both agree on this, but you only have to look up ^ so to speak to find the GNG based AfD nominators. Newmanoconnor for example had many noms. bobrayner references it, but prefers WP:EVENT in actual noms. Here's how it usually goes, barring my own comments. Frankly it's rulebook throwing and lawyering to a large extent: use whatever works. This is why I feel brightline tests in the MMA ruleset are important, so that potential AfD won't be a mess of contradictory interpretations.
I was part of that discussion. It seems like well over half the sports/competitions I happen to look up use the same format (whether it's motorsport, poker, horses, etc, etc), often with less content than MMA space, so the whole landscape is ripe for same AfDs.
IMO this is an area where wiki rules can run counter to good design. A lot of the interesting info in event articles here is built in the leadup where editors are often most motivated. Readers use the resource to find out the current state of the event (contrary to "news" which is a serial subscription of happenings, instead of a summary of "how things are"). Using the same format instead of splitting back and forth to omni simply makes sense. It's not unlike a stub which gets expanded on. I suppose people might be able to live with omnibus here if the right way is hard countered by the letter of the law instead of the spirit (which is to avoid vague future events), but we should be clear it's doing something less desirable just to get by.
Part of the problem here is that people more familiar with the subject don't require as much context, and context can be repetitive and time-consuming. It's a design compromise with no optimal solution unless there's an assumed audience. For example, I think the wiki special relativity article is well written. A physics specialist might think it's too verbose, and anyone without a physics background can't understand what's going on. Similarly, higher math entries on wiki are basically incomprehensible to anyone except domain experts. IMO, actual reader feedback is a good barometer, but this is verboten when wiki hardliners get involved. Another solution I mentioned above is maybe a "guide" on how MMA works (or link to one), which would improve contextual abilities of readers without adding undue burden and verbiage. Agent00f (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am not qualified to comment on the respective merit of each AfD nominated by the editors listed above. However, I found only 5 independent sources that mentioned UFC 27, mostly well after the fact and in the context that it was a "poorly organized" and "poorly attended" event. (There may be more out there as I only checked GNews.) If the summary spinout concept doesn't take hold, I'm afraid this event may not pass WP:GNG to stand alone. UFC 149 is a future event, I'll discuss below.
Agreed, I would honestly hate to see this become the norm on WP.
I imagine creating an article a week or two before an event happens may not run counter to policy; however, the truth of the matter is that rumors and speculation do not belong in an encyclopedia. I agree that it may be useful to certain readers, however, this is a prime example of what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Allowing the MMA project to adopt a SNG that disregards WP:FUTURE could set a dangerous precedent, similar to the point above.
Your points are well taken, and I definitely agree regarding your position on undue burden and verbiage. That being said, any reader, not just readers familiar with the subject, should be able to determine why a fight was important and its overall impact on the sport. This includes the events leading up to the fight, the fights themselves, and the subsequent events. The beauty of wiki is that additional context is always a click away, but that does not relieve editors of the burden including well-sourced prose in an encyclopedia. There's certainly no need to reinvent the wheel within each article, but if you take a look at the motorsport example I posted above (19:24, 21 May), you'll hopefully see what I mean in terms of article quality. None but shining hours (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The set of UFC events weave a consistent narrative (later events dependend on prior ones) and are endnodes for links from fighter bios and other mma pages. So even if consensus was that a few events seem less notable than others, it's probably best if we had consistent policy to determine when to drop individual entries if any. Current the navigation between UFC26<->UFC27<->28 is very suspect. I found that OTHERSTUFF seems to state "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items."
Yeah, there are now numerous editors at Village Pump and elsewhere trying to work on the broader problem of fitting massive amounts of existing linked-list pages (at least tens of thousands) with wiki-rules. It's notable that any of the arguments here are fungible to the thousands of event pages across hundreds of competition entries whether it's cards/cars/horses/people. Let's hope there's not too much resistance from interests who've supported deleting entries individually.
I would disagree that the edits done previous to events are rumors and speculation. They're usually about contestants who are verified to have withdrawn from competition (injury, etc), verification of his replacement, or new competitions added, etc. It's very important to anyone with an interest if for example one party to the headline event is no longer part of the show. The edits are not about who might win or other off-color rumors. The "encyclopedic" value of wiki is that reader can come to one location to gather a summary of what the topic is about (as opposed to news, which is a serial stream one must subscribe to), and an summary page for historically reliable info for events watched by millions seems not only very useful but encyclopedic.
I definitely agree that to an extent wiki needs to consider the average reader, but the average reader who might click on the UFC XX page is different from one who might click on UFC proper to figure out how this works before they delve into detail. For example, even if I click on Lorentz_transformation and get confused, I'm somewhat obligated to back out a bit for proper perspective on physical reference frames before diving in again. The 2012 F1 entry are quite detailed, but a majority are not. Coincidentally, I've been using the latter as an example. As an F1 fan (well above MMA), I personally find the former way too verbose, though 1997 Canadian Grand Prix could use bit of improvement. However IMO it's not for me to judge those too apathetic to write detailed play-by-play when the same is covered by program dvds sold afterward. It's also notable that F1 is one of the largest international sports broadcast to 200+ countries, almost a best case scenario for competitive events. Agent00f (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A consistent narrative would be ideal, although I get the feeling that many editors do not feel the same way. Likewise, the quote from WP:OTHERSTUFF seems very applicable in this situation, however, there does not seem to be a consensus as to whether most events are notable or not. I imagine some would feel that 70-80% of UFC events are notable, while others would argue a much lesser percentage, say 20-30%, are notable.
It appears as if the spinout question on village pump is headed for a RfC, which may or may not provide some much needed clarification. Let's hope it does. As a side note, I think you'll find that there are "inclusionists" and "deletionists" all over WP; and believe me, the "members" of each camp that you've encountered here are quite tame compared to other editors I have come across in other topics.
Agent, I understand your points regarding future events and do not entirely disagree with them. However, as I have stated before, WP policy is quite unambiguous in this situation and it is likely better that you focus your efforts on the inclusion of the events that have already taken place. I am not trying to be overly dismissive, I just feel that it is extremely unlikely that the community will budge from what appears to be a very clear consensus on the issue.
I agree that the average reader who is likely to click on a UFC XX page is different, however, that is essentially irrelevant with regards to how an article is supposed to be contructed. These aren't policies, but take a look at these two essays: WP:RF & WP:RKN. Well-sourced prose not only helps demonstrate notability, but (to borrow your words above), helps weave a narrative. I have no problem with the 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix (other than the potential OR that may exist), and I agree that the 1997 Canadian Grand Prix could definitely use some improvement. None but shining hours (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody give a quick rundown of where this discussion is at?

There is no way I'm going to go back and read this whole page. Can somebody give me a quick rundown of where the discussion currently is? Also, one point I'd like to make. As editors who work on mixed martial arts on Wikipedia, we should be looking to IMPROVE articles. We should be on the same team looking to improve the work that has already been done. NOT trying to delete and get rid of as much as possible. It seems as if the vast majority of users would like to keep the UFC articles and work on improving them, while a small group of users who are very organized in their efforts are having the biggest impact on MMA on Wikipedia as of late. That isn't right. Gamezero 05 00:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

One more point I'd like to make. I've been fairly active in going around and trying to make my opinions known. There are so many discussions going on about MMA on so many different pages, most people who would like to discuss it don't even know discussions are taking place. Like I said, I've been fairly active in my efforts and I have been looking for different places where these discussions are taking place. Nobody bothers to let me know they are going on. That small group of organized users will tell each other when a discussion is going on, since they are like-minded. But they don't let people who oppose them know. That also isn't right. I think it is appropriate to let EVERY person who works on the MMA project know about discussions when they are taking place. Gamezero 05 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically the discussion is to make UFC coverage on Wikipedia as clumsy and convoluted as possible. Portillo (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion basically isn't making any progress because the supporters of having individual UFC articles instead of being forced into using the omnibus method are being ignored. Instead, you have administrators deleting articles anyway and dismissing every single rebuttal, no matter how well-written or based on policy the argument is. Unforuntately, there really isn't any defense to it since the pages then get protected and we no longer get any say. Zeekfox (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As a MMA fan I felt compelled to comment on this as I regularly use WP for learning about UFC in particular. My argument is that early UFC events are a critical part of the history of MMA and should stay on that part alone. Proposing to delete these would be the equivalent of suggesting the deleting of information on the formative events of any sport. Secondly within UFC there is no strict delineation between numbered events and smaller events in terms of the effect it has on the balance and the route to a title shot. Let me use Dan Hardy as an example he started as a fighter on the preliminary card for UFC 89 which according to what some people are saying isn't noteworthy however his performance at this event had him in the supporting fight on the main card his continued success led him to a title fight in only his 5th UFC fight. The rankings, balance and the route to a title fight changes with every punch thrown in UFC. So if UFC in itself is inherently considered noteworthy then every event in its entirety is noteworthy. As for the argument about the need for coverage from non-dedicated sources is required I contest that, as a fan of Formula One which has been used as an example within this debate only the top teams and top drivers get regular coverage in non-dedicated sources and only then within their country of origin i.e. Mclaren gets sporadic coverage in the UK while Ferrari is almost always in mainstream Italian journalism. Never mind the bottom of the grid teams like Caterham Marussia and HRT who only ever gets reported on by either dedicated sources or even from their own PR departments. comment added by Pierced Guy (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone cares (and I'm not convinced at this point that anyone does): I am personally open to the idea of a championship fight can be a criteria for notability for an event of a top-tier promotion; lesser promotions not so much. I also think another notability criteria should be that the articles cite sources outside of MMA-related media. I also firmly believe that WP:SPORTSEVENT should be followed; specifically "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." That prose should discuss more than routine announcements of injuries and fight announcements or changes and should discuss the significance of the event to explain why it is/was notable. (Examples: Greasing controversy at UFC 94, first ever submissions of Nogiera(sp?) and Machida at UFC 140.) --TreyGeek (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Until either wiki policies are updated or the rest of wikipedia is held to the same standard that mixed martial arts is being held to, I don't believe there is much point in continuing this discussion. It's become quite obvious that this whole campaign is being done in bad faith when there are so many other examples of virtually identical article sets (including thousands of tv series articles as well many other sports related articles) that continue to go unchallenged.

However, at this point it seems nearly impossible because if someone does challenge those other articles in the interest of consistent policy enforcement, they are accused of being WP:POINTy or using WP:OSE. As a major proponent of wikipedia, I find this situation to be quite embarrassing as it gives the impression that this site has a bias against mixed martial arts (and judging by the way this discussion has gone, that may well be accurate). 24.70.78.42 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Those need to be deleted too, if they fail the general notability guideline, and they will be, eventually. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also many MMA events that are far less notable than UFC. I dont know why these werent deleted or merged first. Portillo (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it was planned that way. Feel free to go nominate or merge the less notable ones yourself, or at least give guidance to the people doing the merging/deletion. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen

I have enjoyed my brief tenure assisting very slightly with MMA articles, but I have now decided to wind down my involvement for the most part. In my opinion the RFC/U was helpful at achieving its ends; the RFC at least demonstrated that the permanent solution is not likely to be through a specific notability guideline; and I have at least gotten an AFD roster started at the WikiProject that others can maintain. I am hopeful that this topic (one of many that is subject to warring between "walled gardeners" and "deletionists") will someday find a happy resolution, and, while I am not pleased about the current AFD run, in the event of a local solution any deleted articles can be recreated as consensus agrees. It is my intent to continue watching to assist with sitewide solutions, and I will also chime in when I see MMA community discussions that I can contribute to. Shalom. JJB 23:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Amending requirements for WP:MMAEVENT

Latest comment: 11 years ago80 comments18 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is currently no consensus to change the notability guidelines as proposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability proposal

Below is a proposal to modify WP:MMAEVENT to read and/or include the following:

Individual events are not inherently considered notable. Articles about individual MMA events can exist if they meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The criteria below provide guidance as to how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may apply to MMA events:

Inclusion Criteria: For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article, the article should have at least one source that is reliable, is independent of the subject, and discusses the event and its significance. This means that one or more sources pass reliable-source guidance and are not primarily MMA-related, and the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results. Websites such as Sherdog.com are allowable, and preferable, for sourcing facts. However, they should not be used to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general-interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

Article Content: Individual event articles should not be created until they are announced through one of the fully independent sources as mentioned in the inclusion criteria. Individual event articles should contain enough prose so that non-MMA fans can understand what led up to the event occurring, the individual fights themselves, any aftereffects of the event, and the significance of the individual event.

Discussion 4

Support as nom. The only revision I made from Trey's original proposal was the removal of the 3 to 4 paragraph requirement. This proposal addresses what is required to create an individual article and what sources are needed to determine information that goes beyond routine coverage. If anyone thinks the 3 to 4 paragraph requirement should be reinstated to the Article Content section, please state so in your comments. ~~131.62.10.30 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)~~ _{Hurr durr, wasn't logged in...} Ish dar ian 03:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Again forgive me if I'm doing this wrong, but if ESPN is fine as per "sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability", wouldn't Fox Sports be in the same boat and ok to source from to demonstrate notability? They cover multiple sports etc. JShep2010 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a wierd one. While Fox Sports does cover multiple sports, it also does the sports reporting FX and Fuel TV, so it isn't fully independent. Plus, it only really covers UFC, not MMA as a whole. Ish dar ian 05:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fox partnership with UFC is fairly new/recent. This isn't to say that they are "independent", but shows that the landscape is constantly changing as we would expect of a high-growth sport. The coverage of UFC on wiki was frankly ahead of its time several years ago (ie akin to ground floor), which is why it's currently such a high-traffic resource. What's ironic about this whole situation is that had it been exposed to the same AfD campaign then, it would've never made it through at all; while at the same, in couple years with growing popularity all the new entries might be safe from AfD with current rules. What we really should be building here is a consistent framework for all sports in such a scenario, not hoping that trivial changes can solve a novel problem. Agent00f (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reject. I seriously doubt the prior regulars Newmanoconnor named above from the stakeholder side cares at this point, since participating for them is just lending credibility to a process spear-pointed and dominated by the same old people who will be saddle with no burden from the decisions. This is my 2c on just a few of the main issues:

RfC for entry/event in this format goes hand in hand with the omnibus as it exists now. Doing this first basically provides a backdoor through which omnibus will pass much more easily as-is in the future.
The rules are long yet ambiguous. eg "enough prose so that non-MMA fans can understand". There is no brightline test established at all. This leaves most all of the same kinds of wiki entries still vulnerable to current deletionists and new ones. This doesn't look like a compromise at all, just a codification of what one side of the divide is currently content with: vague rules open to interpretation.
Some elements are simply arbitrary. eg "the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results". For example UFC 142 and 143 both contain contests critical to determining future events (therefore a reader interested in one will generally be in the other), but an editor at some random "mainstream" site might just happen to write on one and not another. So even though the two are functionally equivalent to the sport as a whole, the outcomes of this rule can be drastically different.
It still fundamentally considers MMA to be exactly the same as any other sport, when one of the numerous reasons there's a conflict is because it's not. Even admin Dennis himself admitted above that the goal is to provide a solution amiable to the unique circumstances in the sport (like sequentiality).
I can't see how this solves any of the basic problems which've hampered results in the past, other than the claim that "something was done" from a bureaucratic perspective. It'll only breed and provoke the same conflicts in the future.
If it's not yet clear, this is a terrible RfC because it's as much the completely wrong approach to take as it is inconsiderate in the details. Misses the forest entirely for the trees, and they seem to be powerline posts and not actually tree. For example, since these ambiguous rules are prone to AfD, there's no real motivation to split from the omnibus, creating a moral hazard against improving an already terrible design.
To be fair though, because the proposal is so generally useless on its own, not much harm can come of passing it in and of itself.

This isn't a problem which can be trivially solved by considering a couple trite points at time, otherwise we wouldn't need to be here. Somewhat complex issues require more sophisticated problem-solving, and I don't see any of that ATM. A minimal level of domain knowledge/expertise also helps when resolving non-trivial issues.

As an aside, can the other admins and whatnot watching this see to it that Mtking and Treygeek don't wholesale delete this like my former comments on the page? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Refutation Here is a point by point refutation

"RfC supports the Omnibus as it is now, providing a back door" We're codifying the informal consensus about the Omnibus articles so that editors who want to come along and edit/create a stand alone event article will be informed via the formal consensus that the best way for the events to live is to start as a section in the omnibus.
"No bright line tests" We're writing a guideline (which is deliberately vague) and not a rule (which is hard and fast) for the reason that it's better to leave semi-nebulous guidelines that can be discussed than a hard and fast rule which doesn't allow for discretion or discussion.
"UFC 142 and UFC 143 are important because they determine future events" Looking at UFC 142 a significant amount of the prose is of the form "Fighter X was scheduled but couldn't make it" type. The only valid prose in my mind is the minor issue about Johnson/Belfrot fight. I would argue that UFC 143, with a little more prose expansion is potentially appropriate for a split but would definitely discuss it to establish the consensus first. UFC 142, however I think would be better served in the incubator of 2012 in UFC events. We cannot control what reliable sources are going to write about, we only can mix together what they report via cited statements.
"considers MMA to be the same as any sport" The entire purpose of the RfC is to get a change put in for the Specific Notability Guideline (SNG) that MMANOT has become. Typically editors bow to the SNG over the General Notability Guideline as the SNG is written in terms specific to the issue at hand.
"can't see how this solves any of the basic problems" While I agree that the single purpose editors who want to puff up a specific promotion probably won't read this, editors who are committed to improving the quality and quantity of coverage of MMA on wikipedia should have the guideline in their mind at all times so that time and effort are not wasted with repeated process
"no reason to improve","moral hazard to spliting" We'd love to hear a proposal from the MMA community that doesn't look like a specific loophole that causes the quality of articles to diminish. Each proposal so far (in my mind) has been a combination of WP:ILIKEIT and requests to keep the status quo. The status quo is not working as evidenced by the AfD nominations and the AfDs being resolved by removing or merging the previous content.

Finally, please consider striking your suggestions about the proposal being useless, that editors outside the MMA domain can't solve this problem, and that Mtking and Treygeek may delete your comments. To use a platitude: People who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks. This RfC has been advertised on the Adminsitrator's Noticeboard where experienced editors and Administrators keep an eye on lower grade issues. It does not help coming to a solution if bad blood is being tracked into this RfC. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement doesn't refute my claim but rather supports it, so not sure why it's called a refutation. This is a backdoor for omnibus as it exists right now.
Same. Just a suggestion: please consider using a work other than "refutation" to describe this, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.
Same. It's hard to see how a bunch of ambiguous statements up for interpretation serves to refute the claim that the subject is still up for interpretation even with passage of these rules/guidelines.
Again, what is this supposed to refute? A "refutation" is something along the lines of: "It's not true this isn't MMA specific, here are the very domain dependent bits in the rule: X Y Z". A generic statement that applies to anything is not "specific".
This is a classic example of ad hom fallacy. "Don't listen to these 'SPA' guys, we know better". This is also completely incorrect given that the "we" clearly have no domain expertise (integral to knowing better), nor have any future stake. Is this meant to be a parody of terrible logic? On the plus side, this is actually a refutation, just an atrocious one.
This still doesn't refute any claim. But given that alternative proposal are either ignored or wholesale deleted as matter of habit, I don't see how it's even meaningful statement.

In summary, this "refutation" basically reinforces everything in my comment above. Also, there's no need to strike the fact this RfC is useless since that's quite relevant to the RfC, and the plead to stop Mtking and Treygeek deleting comments is based on clear prior precedent and still a concern. The claim that domain knowledge is useful to solving domain-specific problems is basic logic. IMO a dose of basic logic would be helpful to this process Agent00f (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Support I would like the guidelines to have included a bit of help on identifying sources that are more than routine, but that can come later. Mt king ^(edits) 08:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read both User:John J. Bulten and User:DGG comments below who oppose, one because their interpretation is that it is more inclusive and the other because their interpretation is that it is more restrictive than current policy, shows that while I believe the intent is to be more clarifying, the wording is ambiguous and as a result this could (would) lead to more confusion and disruption, we therefore; I believe need to go back to the drafting stage again and as such I therefore Oppose the new wording (but not what I believe is the intent). Mt king ^(edits) 01:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Support I also would like to see us flesh out reliable sources that are more than routine, and while I'm ok with the removal of the 3-4 paragraphs guideline, I would like to see some language that isn't quite as strict in regards to using prose and sufficiently covering what the article is about, outside of routine coverage, so that someone completely unfamiliar with MMA/UFC could understand the significance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments

1) I think I will support this, but will weigh in a bit later. The wording could be simplified.

2) "...more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results..." Could you give an example of "non-routine news reporting"?

3) Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual Events is a section in an essay. It appears, visually, like a guideline. It has a shortcut. It lays down the law. But it is an essay. An RfC on amending an essay??? Is the intention to move this, if supported, to a proper guidelines section? Sorry to ask such a stupid question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For point 2, see my !vote for what I think would be some examples. For point 3, that's pretty common for most projects. Projects can't override Wiki-wide policies, but they can explain them in better terms specific to their area. Giving good guidance on how to determine notability for fighters, events and organizations should mitigate issues and help all WP editors review the articles. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cautiously endorseThe hard part about this is the non-routine coverage. An article that says the event is happening with fights X, Y and Z is routine. An article that says the results were A, B and C is routine. An article that says something unusual happened at an event is not routine. Ravensfire (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"non-routine coverage" = "something unusual happened". Okay. Then I guess my next questions are: Do unusual things happen at MMA events? If so, out of the roughly 200 events listed at Template:UFC Events, how many had something usual happen? 1%? 50%? 99%? I'd like to know what kind of impact this clause is likely to have. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The way I'd define non-routine coverage as anything besides who's on the card, who had to withdraw from the card, results of the fights. I would consider missing the weight limit by 400 grams non-routine coverage. I would consider accusations of greasing that did lead to disciplanary hearings as non-routine. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, looking at a random bunch of articles from Template:UFC Events, it appears that roughly 80% would be AfD fodder if this were approved. What percentage do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be UFC 146. You had a fighter removed for failing a pre-fight drug test. That, to me, is non-routine and was covered by mainstream media. I'm not going to try to estimate the percentage because honestly, it doesn't matter. If you've got an event where the coverage is routine, I've got serious questions if it should be in a stand-alone article. If it's a second or third tier event, that coverage needs to be even higher. For example, in a lower tier UFC event, having a new or struggling fighter fail a drug test probably isn't as notable as a fighter failing for a major UFC event and may not be enough. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Actually, can't agree with your statement "...it doesn't matter...". I think most editors are concerned about the impact this new guideline would have on the existing articles at Template:UFC Events. Again, I see roughly 80% AfD fodder if this were approved. What percentage do you think? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From a pure drama perspective, yeah, I know it's going to be there. I don't doubt that. I honestly see this RFC more as a clarification, not a change, of what's in MMAEVENT. It pretty bluntly says that MMA events are not notable except ... The change is that it's actually being applied. (See my comment on ANI in the walled garden sub section) The really useful part of the RFC (to me) is making that section clear with easy to understand examples of what's routine and what's not routine. The "it doesn't matter" statement is me simply being blunt. There's a lot of merging that will need to be done and I'm hoping the result of this RFC will make that process easier and reduce the drama. And with some concrete examples, I hope that it will help the MMA proponents to shift from obstruction to knowing what to look for to move the event back into a stand-alone article. My suggestion would be for a thread to be started for each year, listing the articles to be merged and not merged based on the current contents. Give folks a week to find material that would justify a non-merge, then merge the remainder. Once everyone is used to the process, have 3-4 threads open at a time for different years / organizations. I totally expect pushback, hostility and everything else we've seen but the articles your percentage refers to have issues. There is absolutely no denying that. I'm not denying other articles in other areas DON'T have problems (again, see that walled garden section) but we're talking about these articles here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement basically validates the claim this RfC already assumes the omnibus as-is is a done deal despite lack of any closure (unless stealth deletion via admin is equivalent to closure now). It's a classic begging the question argument. It also validates the claim that this RfC solves nothing. A load of AfD's on all existing events with 10 arguments citing 5 rules which all contradict each other is exactly the same as before. Can someone please answer why we're wasting time here better spent addressing roots of the larger issue instead? Agent00f (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI anything is blocked for me because I'm in China.

This is bad news.

What is the aim of this RfC? To encourage higher quality articles? Few new articles will pass non-routine coverage. I think the aim also is to get rid of articles. It is to legalize the execution. I see the same guideline as before, but with consensus it becomes law. That way, mass AfDing per "fails MMANOT; duplicates omnibus" can begin. It seems spinny and inclusionist as it is worded in positive terms. In fact it is a poison pill for the bulk of existing MMA articles. If it's being promoted on the grounds that new articles will be stronger, that's little compensation for the tatters that will be the MMA project here. What is the desired outcome of the RfC? To rid Wikipedia of fansite articles? They look like ordinary articles to me.

This is an opportunity missed. The opportunity is to compromise by protecting existing UFC event articles, at least for some time into the future. Then to encourage new MMA project recruits. Reinforce the existing articles. Produce quality. To become the go-to place for MMA information, just as Wikipedia is for every other topic.

If this passes, I see mass AfDs, MMA Project members leaving, an army of potential members never joining to improve articles, and worst of all, over half a billion clicks a year that redirect to omnis that nobody wants to read. Prose summaries? They will close the tab.

Like a restaurant that insisted on presenting only dishes it liked, the customers left. Making articles in the form that some personally prefer is second to making articles that people want and use. Function is paramount. If you don't believe me, allow me to design a chair and then invite someone to sit on it. The point will be driven home. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that if anything, the AfDs will be closed as merge to Omni per WP:MMANOT for the less notable ones. Why should those who invest time in trying to improve articles and save them from the dreaded Delete have to cater to those who aren't going to invest time in improving articles and occasionally read WP? Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The aim of the RfC is simple, to clarify notability guidlines for MMA events. What comes after that is a continuation of what types of changes to make and what to leave in place so we don't have mass AfD's. Can we please try and stay focused on the RfC and how the notability guidelines should read? Wikipedia is not the go to source for any one type of information, it's FUNCTION is that of an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's purpose is to serve people unfamiliar with a topic, referenced information about that topic. It absolutely functions to serve those who have little to no knowledge of a subject.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The is completely wrong. For example, most of the technical subjects on the site (eg the Liouville function, or Soft Heaps) are completely inaccessible to novices and seem to be written for its own audience. Most contain sophisticated terminology which only references material of equal obscurity. However, due to the intimidating nature of their subject, they're less accessible to deletioninist's "ENCYCLOPEDIA" reasoning and actions. So the logic seems to be that we need to make MMA entries far more obtuse to protect them. It's also wrong that all individual entries must explain themsevles. For example, if someone doesn't know what an MMA event consists of, or how the sport works, then there's the UFC entry (linked from the event already) to provide context, and the MMA link from there to provide further background. Agent00f (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, it's pretty obvious not a lot of informed thinking went into this proposal, and as a result it's extremely shallow and prone to massive problems. For example, per my reply to Ishdarian above, had we been doing this a bit back, FOX would've been considered an "independent" source, and many/most event might've used them as their "1 or more" requirement. However, one business partnership later (which is regular occurrence in the media world, eg. CBS), and all those articles would be up for an AfD campaign. Imagine if ESPN partners with UFC in the future (quite possible on Xbox), then that would be useless as a notability source, too, even though the sport is only gaining notability with these deals. This proposal only makes any sense if we ignored any domain knowledge or logic, so it reflects poorly on wiki as a whole if it passes regardless. Agent00f (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What ever happened with Wales' grand idea? "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." 76.103.153.126 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, if the only thing that would be in the article for an event is when the event was, who fought and how the fights turned out, then they should be in the omnibus. If there's more useful information in the article then you've probably got something that goes in it's own article. Wikipedia is NOT the source for full sports results. It's an encyclopedia. Hence the WP:ROUTINE that various people keep trying to ignore. We LINK to sites that provide the full sports results. Ravensfire (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we're all already assuming this RfC is irrelevant and moving on to the omnibus, it was noted many times before that if everyone already agree that an omnibus format is acceptable, then the same information with entries split in careful formatted and consistently linked manner should also be acceptable. There's no functional difference and the presentation is superior. However the problem was that this argument required some minimal level of logical capacity to understand, rather than just blind acceptance of existing guidelines designed to solve other problems. Agent00f (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent, We all are not assuming this RfC is irrelevant. You certainly have the right to think that and state so yourself,you do not speak for any other editor. Also, this is not a forum to discuss anything other than the RfC,opinion on the RfC, suggestions for improvements about the RfC, etc.Please move your comments that have gone past this subject matter above the RfC or delineate it below. I would really like your input into a solution, and while I appreciate your comments being much shorter, you aren't being constructive or productive. If you don't like the proposal at RfC comment on those specific proposals,come up with a different idea,something. Shortened diatribes and soapboxing are still just that.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to speak for anyone since their comments speak for themselves. Is your request that everyone stop talking about the broader issues/implications or just me? Also, I would appreciate it if you can reply to my other very substantive comments (incl direct response to you) instead of only jumping in when it's convenient to do so (eg. "me too" voting). Ignoring others' constructive comments is a sign of DISRUPTIVE editing. Thanks.

Also, as I've noted several times, my "different ideas" above were either ignored or wholesale deleted by the agenda setting team. I hesitate to post them here again given this history and since you're already berating others for moderately long ideas not directly derivative of the RfC. Agent00f (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur:

"...merge to Omni per WP:MMANOT..." still means that UFC XXX will be removed from the mainspace.
"...for the less notable ones..." I would still like your opinion on what percentage of existing articles would be nommed for deletion.
"...Why should those who invest time..." The whole point is to improve the articles, and to start an initiative to do so. Deleting or redirecting them will likely mean the end of that article at Wikipedia forever.
"...and occasionally read WP..." I don't understand.

Newmanoconnor:

"...The aim of the RfC is simple..." Swap "simple" for "prima facie" and I agree. There is an underlying reason.
"...What comes after..." That is exactly what we should be discussing now, not after. The likely outcome if this RfC if approved obviously highly germane to this discussion, and should be made clear here and now.
"...Wikipedia is not the go to source..." In reality, it is.
"...is to serve people unfamiliar with a topic..." It is far more general than that. It is used by children and researchers alike.

Anna, I'm not sure how to address your assertion that there is some conspiracy underlying the RfC, we are simply continuing on the path we were on with Dennis. After RfC we hammer out how to organize Omnibus pages, multiple ones. Then we tag articles which don't meet notability with Merge discussions,Then we merge and rebuild the Omni's as best we can to have the same information and continuity that the single articles have. It is quite simple. You also are well aware we have tried to discuss the ins and outs of the project as a whole, only to be disrupted by nonconstructive participants,solving the problem in steps is the best route forward under these conditions, and an essay on policy like WP:MMANOT is to WP:GNG is not LAW. We could go merge any of these pages we want right now without discussion and work on the omni's. The whole point of the RfC is to hear out valid criticism,other ideas,etc. This is how I came to support keeping the click through chronology even on the Omnibuses. Wikipedia is NOT the go to source for any single topic, it is not an MMA database,it is not a fansite. Page hits are irrelevant,this is an encyclopedia. You are correct it is used by children, another reason to hold it to a high encyclopedic standard.Newmanoconnor (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ravensfire:

"...only thing...who fought and how the fights turned out..." Click on a few random UFC XXX articles. The vast majority contain far more information than that.

Agent00f :

"...every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge..." Yes. Deletionists haven't quite addressed that.

I didn't write this, but of course agree with its general sentiments. The only justification towards construction of a better site deletionists have ever provided is that omnibus (not this RfC, I agree) potentially saves entries from their own actions. This seems more like a threat than a compromise/consensus. Agent00f (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"...this RfC is irrelevant..." Not so. The result may be the removal of hundreds of existing articles, and gutting the entire MMA Wikiproject.

True, this is why I pointed out above this is essentially a backdoor for omnibus to "save" us. However, given that the deletionists have already been stealth deleting events and removing info at will, it's hard to imagine the RfC in and of itself can provide even more free reign in this regard. Agent00f (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To proponents of this RfC:

Please be transparent about the intent of this RfC. It appears to have a deletionist agenda:

Is it to create a law that will facilitate the deletion/redirection of existing articles?
If this is approved, will you initiate mass action on these articles? If so, it is important for those considering approval to know how many existing articles will be affected. Please don't avoid this question, as it will be you who will affect these articles. If you can judge then, you can judge now. What percentage? Please be forthright.
I would support this RfC if deletion of UFC (the top level events of the sport) articles were excepted. A campaign to recruit project members and improve the articles, should then be undertaken. As for the rest of the MMA article, let the chips fall as they may.

To those considering this RfC:

I think it is essential to know, in advance, the likely fate of existing MMA articles if this is approved. If proponents make it clear that they will use this for mass deletions/redirections, and you support it, so be it. But, it's important to know.
Consider a proviso allowing inherent notability for UFC events. This is the highest level of the sport. There are only two dozen per year. They all inherently pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, I had no ill intents when I filed this RfC. I was hoping something on this level would help protect most higher-tier events, namely the numbered UFC fights. I spent the last couple of hours digging for sources on some of the numbered fights, and the lack of sources outside of mma-fan/stat sites is making me a little squeamish. Most MMA events are not notable by nature, but I was hoping most UFC fights would fit into this criteria. I'm not comfortable with giving a percentage on what I think, but the number of events that would fail miserably is actually pretty alarming. Ish dar ian 02:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need inherent notability. The general idea behind omnibus is actually sound (pile more stuff onto a page to save it). The default promotion pages pass scrutiny, so basically by aggregating their events onto the same page, it all does (kind of stupid, but whatever). It's only the specific interpretation of this omnibus which has been stealth-implementated that's terrible. If we simply acknowledge that representing this same information in a better way (with clear links up to the main/default page and fwd/back to sequential event instead of anchor tags, it's all basic html/wiki), it should also pass scrutiny. This doesn't allow for random one-off events without description that deletionists fear while preserving most existing content as long it passes this "template" standard. As a brightline testable guideline, it's safe from ambiguous interpretation, and it fosters an environment where sets of event pages can naturally grow instead of throwing them to the dogs of AfD if they try to splinter off. Agent00f (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ishdarian. Forgive my assumption. I should soften the statement by saying that the architects will likely use this as a tool to remove articles.

I searched for UFC event article sources in foreign languages. I tried www.google.com.br/ and saw plenty, plenty of sources. I suspect that using .jp and others would bring more than enough references. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty alarming percentage? Agree. So what is the intent? Millions of keystrokes over many months aiming to remove these articles. That same energy could be spent on an organized, coordinated campaign to communicate and with the MMA community who visit these articles and dwell at the forums. This massive, untapped force is still there, waiting. This diplomacy, and liasing would be, by definition, constructive. This RfC is, by definition, destructive. It is legislation to destroy articles. It's not too late to take a better course.

Furthemore, passage of this guideline will still not result in definitive grounds for deletion or redirect. It only bolsters the deletionist position. All UFC events (and many others, I suspect), inherently pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT. So, lengthy AfDs will continue with inconsistent rough consensus due to differing value judgements.

Again, proponents and architects: What percentage of existing MMA article do you intent on challenging if this is passed. Please don't say you don't know, because if this is passed, five minutes later, you will have a very, very good idea of that percentage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 5

Support: This only brings MMA into line with other sports, where the GNG and WP:ROUTINE applies to such individual articles; only the most important matches, such as league championship matches, receive articles. (As to that, even those non-championship matches which provoked famous incidents, such as the Richard Riot or the Soccer War, do not merit and have not received their own articles.) To address some of the points above:
What percentage of articles will be challenged if this passes? All those people find which do not qualify for articles under appropriate notability criteria, I expect, while those which do qualify will - and should - be left alone. Would you be so kind, Anna, as to articlulate how this is pertinent to the issue?
On the so-called "deletionist agenda" ... what the hell? Have we truly descended to the depths of American politics, where shouting "You're a liberal! A liberal!!" at a political opponent not only is considered a thoughtful and valid rebuttal, but is seen to automatically discredit whatever that person says? If it really bothers you that it is possible on Wikipedia to delete articles, then I recommend you surf on over to WP:DELETE and seek consensus to overturn the process altogether, or else patronize one of the Wiki mirrors which forbids it altogether. Until that time, there are those of us who will continue to seek the removal of articles which do not pass policy or notability muster, because we believe that a quality encyclopedia is both easier to manage and worth more to the world than a ton of wastepaper. Ravenswing 04:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"This only brings MMA into line with other sports..." I would like to note that the NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLB have individual pages for each season for every team in their leagues, because that is the format most useful for fans. In the context of MMA, fans want to know about the event: bonuses, gate attendance, injuries/developments leading up to the event, who is on the promotional flyer, date/venue, walk out music, decision scores, etc. (opining that this information is trivial is contradicted by the media coverage of these statistics and the scores of fans objecting to the new format). The new format does not provide this. Regardless, even high-profile individual games in other sports leagues have their own pages. See NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL. Because every UFC event has substantial title implications and history-making fights, they should all be presumed to be notable. At a minimum, every UFC event featuring a championship bout should have its own page. Trevori 20:19 6 July 2012 (UTC).

Numerous articles pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT, yet fail WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ROUTINE. How you weigh it out reveals whether you are a deletionist or inclusionist. Call it what you want. This proposal was tabled by those with a clear intent to delete.

When a law is passed in the real world it is obvious why we seeking to know the intent and likely outcome. It's pertinent because it helps us decide whether or not to support it.

I am not trying to "discredit whatever that person says" with the term deletionist. Deletionism is not a dirty word, nor is its opposite. I am not saying which is right.

I don't see article managment as a significant factor.

I don't see individual UFC articles instead of omni summaries as turning enwp into a ton of wastepaper.

Descending to the depths of American politics is not possible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Let's examine WP:GEOSCOPE, which you keep claiming validates these articles: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." How these articles pass that I cannot see; I expect you would have a very hard time finding many non-MMA fans who would agree that your bog-standard UFC PPV has a "long-term impact on a significant region of the world."

Further, you claim that these articles pass WP:EFFECT, which holds "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." The notion that 99.9% of athletic competitions could possibly have a lasting effect on world history or culture is well to the left of farcical. The most renowned of championships, between the most prominent competitors, means only that one side wins and one side doesn't. That (say) Anderson Silva won his bout at UFC 134 meant only that he remained the champion, and Yushin Okami didn't upset him; the long term impact of this - even on UFC - is effectively zero. Did Silva winning materially change how mixed martial arts are fought or organized? Was the popularity of UFC measurably and provably affected? Did it change how the organization operates? No, no and no ... yet this was the most recent title victory of arguably the UFC's greatest champion.

Certainly "deletionism" has been used as if the term was self-evidently bad, many times above. "This leaves .. the ... entries still vulnerable to current deletionists." "they're less accessible to deletioninist's [sic] ... actions." "ignored or wholesale deleted by the agenda setting team" "Deletionists haven't quite addressed that." "the deletionists have already been stealth deleting events" "It appears to have a deletionist agenda" Over and over again, this rhetoric persists. It is unworthy, it is uncivil, and it is disruptive. Ravenswing 05:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you make some good points. You didn't respond to my 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th points. I gather you agree then. :)

Re: "Deletionist". I never knew it was considered derogatory by some. I would never have used the word if I thought it would offend people. Maybe "those who lean toward deletion in judgement calls" would be better. Seriously, no offence intended by me.

You quote "long-term impact on a significant region of the world.", but the rest of the sentence is "...or a significant widespread societal group...". Those groups are competitors and their support, people from the many facets of the MMA business, followers, etc. You just cherry-picked part of the guideline that favoured your position, and ignored the other.

You quote "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." You interpret that "something else" as "lasting effect on world history". This seems like augmenting or deminishing guideline interpretations depending on whether or not they strengthen your argument.

You refer to my "...your bog-standard UFC PPV...". What is bog-standard? I've never heard that term before. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PPV: We all have them. How we view MMA. How we envision our dear Wikipedia. How we interpret deliberately fuzzy guidelines. ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT are unavoidable. I do however put forth HALF-A-BILLION-VISITORS-A-YEAR-USE-IT and "function supersedes all else".

Anyway, this isn't really the place to argue this. I just wanted those responding to this RfC to be aware of the intent and likely consequences. If all the articles get deleted, so be it. It would have been nice to prevent it before hundreds were created with tens of thousands of hours. This is the first time I've seen something like this. But, I will agree with the community. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm... PPV = Pay-per-view. Ish dar ian 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooooohhhhhh Pay-per-view. How embarrassing. I always thought they were saying "paper view". Now it all makes sense. I thought TV was free. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"The notion that 99.9% of athletic competitions could possibly have a lasting effect on world history or culture is well to the left of farcical. The most renowned of championships, between the most prominent competitors, means only that one side wins and one side doesn't. That (say) Anderson Silva won his bout at UFC 134 meant only that he remained the champion, and Yushin Okami didn't upset him; the long term impact of this - even on UFC - is effectively zero. Did Silva winning materially change how mixed martial arts are fought or organized? ". This winning passage from Ravenswing deserves to be highlighted and perhaps surfaced to the wider WP:SPORTS community. Ie. "Only events that change the sport forever are deemed noteworthy". Agent00f (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea why people unfamiliar with how rules work are part of a consensus on rule-making. Agent00f (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea why people unfamiliar with Wikipedia feel the need to hijack discussions on rulesmaking with personal attacks. That being said, there is a .sig I've used for many years on VBulletin-style forums: "It is not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we don't agree with what you're saying. Is it that difficult to comprehend the difference?" Ravenswing 05:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's notable that I replied to this situation and quote in detail on the AN page, but didn't get any reply there. In short though, if it's impossible to discern the difference, then the two statements are functionally equivalent. Agent00f (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a concise answer of how you define "quality"? The current ufc events are presented in a consistent and usable manner to many many users/contributors. The annual omnibus above is by every account less user friendly while providing no more (and in fact less) information. The only reason provided for why it's supposedly acceptable is that it meets rules obviously designed to solve somewhat dissimilar problems. The RfC in particular has the effect of removing some articles in coherent set but not others, which ruins wiki's value as a complete reference. So is your definition of "quality" "meets arbitrary rules" rather than something to do with actual value or usefulness? This is not a rhetorical question. Agent00f (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply: A "concise" answer? No. Not only are my views on the same not amenable to soundbites, they are not relevant to this discussion, which I was under the impression was about these proposed notability criteria. That being said, whether an article is presented in a "consistent" or "usable" manner has nothing to do with this discussion either, which is solely on the grounds of whether the subject is notable or not. There are many articles that have been written in clear, consistent prose, and yet the subjects are not notable, thus failing pertinent criteria. Now I see that you're not only inexperienced with Wikipedia, but you have almost no experience with article building (with only 280 edits, and only two in articlespace). While reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR would no doubt prove informative, I especially commend to you WP:ITSUSEFUL, as an example of a generally discredited argument at AfD. Ravenswing 05:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please read those entries before recommending them to others? The fifth pillar of wiki is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules.", and WP:ITSUSEFUL explicitly states: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Would it be too forward to state that you seem to demonstrate almost no familiarity with the basis of your stated purpose as a deletionist on wiki?

It would not be “forward” so much as just another of the ad hominem attacks of which you seem entirely too prone to make. I have created over five dozen articles, I am in the top 1000 of Wikipedia’s contributors, I have over 35,000 edits (20,000 in articlespace), I am a multiple Triple Crown winner for bringing articles to FA/GA status and amassing DYKs on the Main Page, and should I seek commentary as to what my purpose on Wikipedia is or lectures on reading comprehension, I will not seek it from someone who has never once improved an article.
As it happens, WP:IAR is the last refuge of those with no valid arguments to make; they generally blow right past the “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia” part and go straight to the “ignore it” clause. To quote, “"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged ... In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus ... Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.”
As far as WP:ITSUSEFUL goes, “If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion” (emphasis mine) is indeed in that commentary. If reasons are given - you have, in fact, proffered none to explain why this information is necessary to include and why Wikipedia needs to be the place where it is presented, however much it violates several policies and guidelines.
Finally, while you are so eager to discuss the agenda of others ... what about yours? It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to improve articles - you never have improved an article. It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to create MMA articles - you never have. You’re not even here to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia - your commentary has been entirely negative, from trying to shut down AfDs, to trying to discredit editors whom you perceive as opposing your agenda, to opposing any proposal to set notability criteria. Would you care to put your labeling and the talk of agendas to rest, sir, or are you comfortable with your own quite blatant agenda - it’s not that you can claim you are on Wikipedia for any other purpose - being the subject of frequent commentary? Ravenswing 07:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just hard to take seriously the reasoning of someone who doesn't understand ad hom fallacy or argument from authority. I've only pointed out that those pages don't say what you seem to imply they do. Perhaps it's possible to argue they don't really mean what they explicitly say, but you really should've done that before misleading others to believe they are authoritative. It's even more difficult to take someone who only selectively replies with such ridiculous petty authority seriously. Please respond first to the dozen or so comments you've ignored previously before calling anyone else out. Defining "quality" in a less circular way would be a good start. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No! No! No! That is a personal attack. You are hurting your own cause! Don't make Auntie Anna cross! Civil and concise! Please! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out which part you feel is the personal attack please? It seems pretty reasonable to point out that terrible reasoning makes for terrible reasons. For example, that rant above had nothing to do with the point that those "recommended" pages seem to refute Ravenswing's own argument. It's similar to claiming that someone who has trouble with arithmetic shouldn't try to argue calculus. Especially we've already gone over the calculus explanations and didn't get any response. Seems like fairly straightforward logic to me. Agent00f (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You said that he "...replies with such ridiculous petty authority...". That is an insult and an attack. "...someone who..." refers to him personally. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, you are flirting with another block. I know you don't want that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The reply was a good example of ridiculous petty authority, as was the one prior. It's pretty evident the writing defers mainly to arguments from authority and repetition and moving goalposts instead of any reasoning or factual observation. Add to this consistently telling others what to do despite no actual mandate to do so. To be fair, there's the one statement that exceptions to the rules should be justified which stands out from this, but that only seems to have been spoken in ignorance of all the reasons provided over the last week why it was justified. They're also the only replies I've received from this user so it's what I could base observation on. Sometimes facts can show persons in a bad light (for example, a DUI arrest record). I don't know him/her personally and frankly don't really care, but the oppose seems unfortunately untrue.

As for blocks, AFAICT from this talk page they're just shopped around randomly until a willing admin is found. For example, it's unlikely someone here will shop for sanctions against Ravenswing's personal statements above, even though they're actual ad hom fallacy. Agent00f (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1) None of that is a reason for personal attacks.

2) Everyone watches everyone around here. 34 people watch this page. Please, my friend. Just be civil. The results are always better. I know it's hard. Sometimes I've wanted to meet Mtking in the octopus and give him a couple of Auntie Anna's famous "foot twists". (Famous because thereinafter the recipient finds it more convenient to walk backward forever.) But am I civil? Yes! I even reverted vandalism on his talk today. Will I badger him? Oh, baby. You got that right! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If this kind of indignant BS is what wiki is about, then it's wiki which needs to take a look at what it's trying to accomplish. Apparently when it comes to civility: pretentious unwarranted authority = A-OK, pointing this out => let's go shopping! Also: actually applying some domain expertise to a problem badly in need of any = irrelevant. Sigh. Agent00f (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be very clear, even if it's repetitive, 1) is incorrect. "Ravenswing is a petty authoritarian" is a personal attack. I do not know Ravenswing nor do I care to. "Ravenswing replied with petty authority" is not. Ravenswing's own statement on this kind of difference is apt here. This seems lost on editors like Blackmane who repeatedly call my comments obtuse (which likewise is just his perspective), yet goes shopping for sanctions for the same thing in others. This kind of behavior is ridiculously persistent on this topic. Agent00f (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A round of applause for Agent00f and Anna Frodesiak, the only people thinking logically. I support the new proposal because a group of editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. I also support the proposal that we should get rid of all MMA articles and ban any fans of the sport. Portillo (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anna, because you responded civilly I will answer your questions

"still means that UFC XXX will be removed from the mainspace" If you take a look at the BAMMA Events article you will see that when carried out to the letter of the procedure, a Merge/Redirect does not loose any content. First I copy the entire contents of the page (with the exception of a Poster which fails FUR) and paste it into the "Omni". Then I change the original Article (Ex: BAMMA 1) into a redirect pointing at the section in the main article. Then I go to the talk page to place the {{coppied}} template to show from what version text was copied and to where it was copied to perserve the contribution history. Have we done this poorly in the past by forcing a delete? Yes. Can we do better with the Merge/Redirect method? Hell yes!
"I would still like your opinion on what percentage of existing articles would be nommed for deletion." Ideally 0% will get nominated for deletion, however the ones that are below the threshold should be proposed for merge/redirect. Will there be ones that get nominated for deletion? Sure, but one of the outcomes of the discussion can be a closure for merge/redirect.
"The whole point is to improve the articles, and to start an initiative to do so. Deleting or redirecting them will likely mean the end of that article at Wikipedia forever." It only means the end of the individual article if the section doesn't get improved to warrant a split of the content.
""...and occasionally read WP..." I don't understand." I'm asking why should people who actively edit and contribute to WP should have to bow to the wishes of random editors who will pass through to some other site? Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't done in the UFC case. There's definitely content (like fighter pay, etc) missing in the omnibus. Though I suppose in this is a rather minor point in comparison to just how ridiculously unwieldy those omnibuses are.
This is plainly dodging the question. The reality is that they'll be waves of AfD campaigns on this material with votes on personal interpretations of ambiguous rules along party lines. The end result is that it'll leave the space in a mess. How this correlates with "quality" or any kind of wiki standard is a puzzle.
Of course, the work to "improve" out of this mess to something coherent again falls to those for the most part not voting here. That's pretty convenient. All of this against the backdrop of persistent AfD's with no brightline rules, btw.
Why should people who have zero stake in the outcome, have no interest in the subject, have zero expertise be making decisions for those who do? Wiki is not some grand society where deleting material elsewhere grants one power to lord over others here. Please be reminded this is still a volunteer project where motivation is important in every subject, not a business where people are paid to put up with the kind of structure where elites dictate policy to the plebs. Agent00f (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent, I am not going to dignify your deliberately obtuse posting with a response. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, the four points above are too hard to understand. That's really too bad not everyone can grasp the few subject-specific points here because topic related details are important to making subject-RfC decisions. Agent00f (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment If I may unwittingly wade into this RfC... I generally believe that the proposal above is acceptable, although I have some concerns regarding the application and interpretation of WP:ROUTINE. I believe WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE are key criteria that demonstrate an event's notability; and I would suggest that said criteria are paramount to WP:ROUTINE in the realm of sports-related articles. The proposal somewhat addresses this (the ESPN, et al. requirement); however, I feel the WP:ROUTINE rationale by itself will likely result in far too many articles being deleted. The underlying issue is really the manner in which MMA is (dis)organized: there aren't formal seasons, nor does it seem that there are annual recurring events or tournaments. So in the case of UFC, it seems as if WP is stuck between WP:TOOLONG 20XX in UFC-type articles and individual articles that are often unencylopedic and full of WP:TRIVIA. As such, I feel the burden of WP:MMAEVENT could be satisfied if independent sources outside the world of MMA cover a top-tier event in depth. None but shining hours (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anna, sorry for the placement of this comment - there's a lot of not entirely helpful yelling above. In response to your comment about the UFC articles - I did click on quite a few of them before I made my comment about most being just the basic routine coverage. Seriously, I do tend to look through things before making a statement, it's not just blowing smoke. One thing I've found annoying is that there ARE sources that would help some of the UFC articles demonstrate that notability, but the MMA proponents don't bother. They put the event info and results and are done with it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered the idea that these AfD campaigns have been going on for a while might dissuade people from working in this space? Several folks have already communicated to me recently (and I've only really been on this for a week or two) that they simply don't intent to contribute anymore given a group is always looking over their shoulder to delete whatever they've worked on after they're done. Someone with the tenacity I've endure through the harassment and intimidation isn't exactly common, you know? The "neutral" editor hivemindset is frankly disturbing, and you're one of the more reasonable editors. Sigh. Agent00f (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Initial~~ Oppose both: Reading only the proposal and what is replaces, it appears that the proposed change is more inclusive, changing 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" to only "one of the fully independent sources as mentioned in the inclusion criteria". Having peeked at this from a DRV discussion, this is an immediate fail to me. If that is a mistaken understanding, I'll reconsider, but no other project bases notability on only one independent source. I would support any guideline if it is agreed the guideline would delete 80% of the articles; the content of such articles is very very easy to merge. Someone said merging to articles like "2011 in MMA" would be much preferable and more encyclopedic. JJB 20:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) My conclusion after fuller review is that both guidelines, the original and its proposed replacement, would weaken WP:GNG too significantly to support either one. I also believe discussion should be "warmly redirected" to the open RFC/U. JJB 16:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose because the principle that more than the now usual coverage for notability be required would be in danger of spreading. The requirement that something be covered by sources outside its own field is pernicious, and its general application would be disastrous to the goal of having a general encyclopedia. I'd rather have these articles than ruin the encyclopedia. What we are really looking for is a rule based on the actual event, not the sourcing, that could be specific to the subject, but I cannot specify what, for I do not know this subject well enough. My own view is that we could simply resolve this by accepting individual event articles at the top level in all sports. This might be 5,000 a year, but our available space is unlimited. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Pragmatic support. Personally, I have long felt that imposing separate subject-specific notability guidelines orthogonal to the GNG is a recipe for drama and timewasting; I prefer to use the GNG itself wherever possible. However, in this case, I think it extremely unlikely that the bulk of MMA articles will be ruled by the GNG any time soon, and I think that this proposal is at least an improvement on the status quo. I have some sympathy for DGG's position, but I think that the "outside the field" rule would get us away from deciding that any event is notable if it's covered on a website which indiscriminately lists every event. bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's rather because every event is covered in a consistent manner that the cohesive resource is useful. You're effectively arguing that "while it might make everything less coherent, at least it follows the letter of the rule". Can you please iterate the general point (ie spirit) of the rule you're referencing? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would love every event to be governed, consistently, by the same rule that governs the rest of the encyclopaedia; the GNG. That would mean more coherence and consistency, not less. Alas, many MMA articles fail the GNG, and attempting to correct the situation creates much drama including nonsensical responses from MMA defenders along the lines that they have to be kept in order to be consistent; that people who want MMA articles to fit in with the rest of wikipedia's rules are part of a conspiracy; or that rote creation of minimally-sourced identikit sub-stubs is the basis of useful articles. Such responses need not be taken seriously, and misrepresenting what I say won't improve your credibility. The GNG is quite simple; a subject probably deserves its own article if there is substantial coverage from independent sources. If Sherdog want to do something very different - to list every event they can - they're welcome to do so, but this is an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I don't have a dog in this fight; I've responded to a couple of points, and hopefully provided an outside view when !voting on one of the proposals, but I don't want to stay and haggle. Am happy to let others have the last word... bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain your own claim of how applying GNG here makes the end result more consistent? For example, dropping a UFC event means that consistent links from fighter bios are broken, and a sequential narrative that established causality in the sport and the org's history is also unnecessarily broken. You describe arguments based on domain-relevant expertise as "nonsensical"; can you expand on the reasoning here? That appears to be just a blanket argument from simple ignorance, and surely you disagree. An argument of "I don't get it and I don't care" is generally speaking very weak. Please note that WP:N for sports CONSISTENTLY makes similar exceptions for just about every other sport (eg seasonal, championship), which would rather confirm that this isn't an unsolved problem. Also, please avoid violating WP:IDHT by ignoring these simple questions and continuing your prior actions regardless. Agent00f (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not active enough on WP (because of real life time constraints) to actively participate in this discussion, so I apologize in advance if my points replicate what others have said but I haven't had a chance to read. Anyway, it may make sense to merge a lot of individual articles into stuff like 2012 in mixed martial arts events if we are somehow offended or annoyed at the prospect that less historic , so long as the compilation article contains the same sort of information comprehensive. Fight results, walk out music, attendance...that's certainly information that falls under the auspices of "What Wikipedia Is." It's not really "news article" information at all, and it's certainly information that some readers will want, even years after the event happens. For me, the test should be something like, "Is this something that readers will want to find out about, even months or years later, and is there a reason for them to come here instead of search a news archive. The answer seems like an unequivocal yes to me. if you look at the coverage that UFC cards, even many of the smaller ones, receive, it begins before the event and often continues for a few days after the event. That it doesn't continue at the same clip a week or more after the event that it did the day after the event shouldn't matter, since the same is true about plainly notable events such as, say, a major presidential speech. The project page should state a clear directive to merge the lower profile stuff rather than delete it entirely. It belongs on Wikipedia in some fashion. Croctotheface (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Non-trivial coverage = Something unusual happened is the weirdest and worst description of non-trivial coverage i've ever heard. We're not here to document "unusual" things, we're here to document important human knowledge. The only reason we don't document every single sports match ever is that they don't all get significant coverage, but they are all important. They are not events, so they don't have anything to do with newspaper things. Especially when someone getting pulled out of a match doesn't seem to have anything to do with notability to me, unless that action in itself is followed by lots of coverage of it. The coverage is all that matters and a lot of you seem to think that MMA is unimportant compared to other sports and should have less articles about it, which is an inappropriate attitude to have in any topic area. I wonder why some of you are even a part of the MMA Wikiproject. Silver seren^C 20:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(duplicate !vote) Oppose unless this is redefined. I agree with Silverseren that this confuses the concept of non-routine coverage with that of a non-routine event. Non-routine coverage means there being a reasonably detailed description of what took place, in addition to the result. I think this is in line with practice at all sorts of other articles. Obviously a sufficiently unusual event will draw more coverage than it would ordinarily, but so will a fight of exceptional importance. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.