Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 8

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts | MMA notability
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Papaursa in topic Changing Notability
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

Organization notability for Shooto

Latest comment: 11 years ago46 comments9 people in discussion

I understand that Shooto has traditionally been considered a top-tier organization, but it seems that the talent pool for the organization is very shallow. Only Shinichi Kojima and Tyson Nam (who recently signed with WSOF) are ranked in the top 20 of their weight class according to Bloody Elbow's most recent rankings. It's certainly a level below the UFC, Strikeforce and Bellator. In fact, even One FC has more ranked fighters than Shooto. I'm wondering if anyone else agrees that it should be bumped down to the second-tier level. Luchuslu (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that Shooto has met the criteria necessary for top-tier in the past, having multiple fighters, particularly in the lighter weight classes, ranked in the top 10 fight for them. Because of this a promotion's notability simply cannot be downgraded just because of it may not hold the same number of top 10 stars now as it did at its height (kinda like saying Strikeforce should be de-promoted to second tier at this time just because it has less than half the number of top-10 fighters competing for them now than they did just before Zuffa bought them, or even bumping down a defunct top tier promotion just because it isn't active anymore). Pound4Pound (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Sock of indef blocked sockpuppeteer BigzMMA Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that in the past there were quite a few top 10 fighters in Shooto, so my suggestion was more that maybe events before 2012 would be considered top-tier while those from 2013 onward would be second-tier. It's not like the organization lost a few stars, it's literally been relegated to the minor leagues. Also, a good example of precedent for dropping an organization would be Pancrase. It's classified as second-tier by Wikipedia, but 10 years ago it had many top 10, and even some top five fighters. Luchuslu (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
We would have two entries for Shooto then: one including all events up to 2011 and another starting in 2012? Evenfiel (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't see any reason that Shooto should ever have been considered a "top teir" organization. While they have at certain times, contained several ranked fighters, they have never been the subject of significant or continual coverage, they have never been the major promotion in their region of the world and they have never played host to more than a handful of notable fighters at any one time. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I somewhat agree. There were times in which Shooto had enough notable fighters to constitute top-tier status. One example is the event Shooto: R.E.A.D Final, which included Caol Uno, Hayato Sakurai, Mamoru Yamaguchi, Frank Trigg, Alexandre Franca Nogueira and Dokonjonosuke Mishima. I would say a parameter similar to RINGS, which is considered notable from 1995-2002 only, would be appropriate for Shooto. I would argue anything between 1990 (when the first Shooto title was won) and 2009 (when they eliminated their eight-count rule) would be a good time frame for notability, as most fighters before and after these dates are less notable. But I'm more than open to modifying those dates. Luchuslu (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with dividing the Shooto notability by dates. Any suggestions about what to do about the numerous "Shooto (your favorite country here)" offshoots? Someone made a good comment at one of the AfD discussions--something like "saying Shooto Lithuania is equivalent to the original Shooto is like saying a new TKD instructor is the same as Bruce Lee." Perhaps it doesn't matter if we treat all the Shooto branches the same, but I think it be good to at least come to a consensus on them. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd have to look at the events the Shooto offshoots have held, but those are definately a notch or two below the original Shooto. They most likely don't even meet second-tier status. Luchuslu (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal That only the original Shooto (i.e., not "Shooto xxx", where xxx is a country other than Japan) fights through 2010 (which is when the original notability discussion took place) be considered top tier. Jakejr (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Even then and I would argue, even at Shooto's height it has never been "Top Tier" it is a long standing, important part of the MMA community, but it has never routinely been the home of the worlds top talent, or the focus of the MMA community at large, it has always been a stepping stone to larger Japanese MMA promotions. It is probably the best possible argument for a three tiered system at the very least, because a system that compares the UFC and Pride to Shooto as equals is a broken system.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, according to the June 2010 discussions that established these tiers, Shooto had 3 fighters ranked in the world top 10. That's why it was included in the top tier. That's the advantage of using objective criteria, it's based on fact not opinions. Jakejr (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
3 out of what 70 or 100 (if you're using multiple rankings which I'd think you'd have to), and for how long, a month, two months, a year. The problem with using rankings for fighters is that it changes from month to month, and if 3 fighters out of 70 (that's 4%) are enough to be considered top tier then that's a terrible system. The UFC is going to have 90% of the top ten fighters at any point in time from the last 5 years forward. A system that looks at one organization that makes up 90% of its data, and two or three others that make up the other 10% and decides that all of them are therefor equal is a broken system. Ranking organizations by top ten fighters only creates a clear picture of the UFC as the No. 1 organization in the world, everything else is an outlier in the data. This isn't just an opinion, it is a solid base for analyzing data sets, and if that's the data set we have to work with it only provides consistent information on the UFC.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the numbers from the June 2010 discussion show that less than half of those fighters (34 of 70) were competing in the UFC. I agree that has now changed since the UFC has bought Strikeforce and the WEC and those organizations had the next highest numbers of top 10 ranked fighters. That doesn't mean the methodology was flawed. I could see your point if you now wanted to make the UFC the only active top tier organization, but that doesn't mean the original concept is wrong. Notability for all athletes is based on competing at the highest level. I also agree with the original consensus of requiring 3 fights (one TUF finale can be included) since UFC initial contracts are for 2 fights (essentially a tryout). However, we've digressed from the original topic of "Shooto xxx" notability. Jakejr (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jakejr's proposal, especially the part about "Shooto xxx" notability. I have changed the page to say that only Shooto in Japan is notable. I didn't want to mess with the work someone did with the dates and number of events. Mdtemp (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems we have a consensus that Shooto is/was only notable in Japan (at most). I agree with Mdtemp's mod to the promotion list, although I'd say be just including Japan you may still have "messed up" the number of events. Perhaps whoever inserted the dates and number of events can correct for your modificiation. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
False. Formiga was the top flyweight when he was in Shooto Brazil. This whole top tier thing is ridiculous. You can't have a guideline that is super specific like that. If it's super specific then it isn't just a guideline. mmatiers are ridiculous unless you win a major championship or have just fought multiple notable fights. Other than that, you need the refs to back up your notability. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I must admit that I know little about the Shooto in Japan, but there was some title disputes (not only for the south american title, but for the main title too) here on Brazil. Siyar Bahadurzada defended his Shooto title two times on Brazil and Luis Ramos won the main middleweight title there too. Poison Whiskey 12:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, given the track record of fighters from Shooto Brazil, I'd be willing to cut them some slack. However, just because some fighters have been successful in Shooto Brazil and gone on to the UFC doesn't mean that everyone who fights in Shooto Brazil should be considered notable. To use a baseball analogy, many minor leaguers have become successful major leaguers, but that doesn't mean that everyone who played in those leagues is notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The same can be said for the original Shooto. I posted somehwere else around here a comment along the lines of that if a Shooto fight didn't have Anderson Silva or Hayato Sakurai in it then who cares? They were fighting for Shooto back when it was top tier. In fact, Anderson Silva was originally supposed to fight Matt Hughes because he was the Shoooto 170 champ at the time. But for whatever reason he didnt, so they sent over Sakurai. Other than that, I can't think of anything notable about Shooto. Heck, if we include Shooto might as well make Pancrase top tier. I mean,Josh Barnett is their HEavyweight champ. As has been Nate MArquardt. You see? it is ririduclous to try and figure out which non UFC/Pride promotions are top tier. There are really only two, and even then you will be hard pressed to find lots of reputable refs about EVERYONE who fought in pride and UFC. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I would say that Shooto Brazil is at the same level of Jungle Fight, at most. Poison Whiskey 22:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I call Shenanigans. Name a fighter who was ranked #1 at the time of their junglefight? In fact, Tachi Palace fights/Palace fighting championships shoudl be top tier because it basically held the entire top ten flyweight division, including a fight between Marmoru Yamugochi. someone will have to comb month by month through sherdogs old p4p rankings. Here is just a taste. As you can see, half of those guys ended up fighting for TPF/Pfc. The tpf/PFC thing I believe is neccessary because they are a continuation of one another. I do have a source for that, and here it is. Here is another top ten TPF guy in Darell Montague. Now, I understand if you don't buy the TPF/PFC link for purposes of having ranked fighters. I only saw one on that list (Vila) who foguth for PFC and was top ten.
So, we have verifiable proof that fighters were ranked in the top ten when fighting for Shooto Brazil and the Tachi Palace Fights. That is more than can be said for most organizations on this list. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite multiple fighters ranked in the top 10 of any weight division fighting for Shooto Brazil? Poison Whiskey 22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Not at the moment, but for TPF yes, and the refs are there. I will do some investigating them get back to why. Why do you ask?
Edit: Found it. So yes, is the answer to your question about Shooto BrazilPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Because the criterion in WP:MMATIER is "Active organizations with multiple fighters ranked in the top 10 in any of the 7 weight classes were placed in the top tier". I would also support TPF and Pancrase in the top-tier. Poison Whiskey 22:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about running rougshod over you. I can't help it that I am good at using search engines, and have superior MMA knowledge/experience. Now is your time and turn to explain. Or do you realise that you are wrong about Shooto Brazil? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No. I still maintain my position. Poison Whiskey 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So you maintain that Shooto Brazil should not be top tier, even when it has met the requirements by having two top ten fighters (one of which is the reigning Bellator champion, and in the top ten at least, the other was #1 ranked in the world) participate? Sounds like you didn't think I could bust out that source, and are now speechless, and/or left without a leg to stand on PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Shooto Brazil works much like Jungle Fight. It's an organization for the best fighters from Brazil that occasionally brings a special attraction. Jussier without a doubt is/was a top 10, but i'm not so sure about Dudu (maybe he's on the border of the top 10). If you think that's enough, go on and make a proposal. Poison Whiskey 23:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You have no evidence to support your assertions. The only evidence we have is usatoday/mmajunkie saying Eduardo Dantas was top ten (they said HE CRACKED THE TOP TEN), was the Bellator champ, fought AND LOST in Shooto Brazil. The point about Formiga does not need to be argued further. This is the second time now you have made an assertion about Shooto=JF yet have not provided a shred of evidence. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the Shooto Brazil events on Sherdog and you will see. Sometimes you find a renowned fighter. The same thing with Jungle Fight. Poison Whiskey 23:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would I help you support your position? please find evidence of what you are saying, as well as well as multiple cases were a top ten fighter has fought in junglefight (who was top ten at the time they fought).. If you can't, then you are really just being disruptive at this point. Your arguement is also not reflected by any guideline. When you presented your guideline I showed you how Shooto Brazil passes it.
edit: in fact mmatier is just an essay. So I showed how your little essay is not applicable in this situation, and even if it was I would still disregard it. I however have found good evidence to support Shooto Brazil being top tier. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I already said: if you're so sure, just make your proposal. You should not waste time with me. Poison Whiskey 00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. You people know how to push these things along better than I do. Why can't we as a group argue amongst ourselves, and then come to a realization based on the facts at hand? Rather than you just backing off from something that is clearly correct. Furthermore, as it stands shooto brazil is already at part of the top tier via shooto. This was also upheld in Papi Abedi's AFd as well. I don't see why you would try to argue with me earlier using unsourced assertions, and then when are proven wrong do not want to try to build a consensus. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Consensus on this issue can't be built between only two or three people. We must see the opinions of other users. Poison Whiskey 01:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Who said that? When people see other people having intelligent discussion I can only assume that people will flock to it. See, it starts at a few, then a snowball effect picks up. Anyway, I will start this discussion in time.
Jakejr, Papaursa, Mdtemp and i agree with only Shooto in Japan in the top-tier. Thaddeus Venture doesn't even think that Shooto deserves the top-tier. Only you seems to support Shooto Brazil in the top-tier for now. Poison Whiskey 22:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Papi Abedi's AfD was before we came to a consensus that only Shooto Japan should be considered top tier. Also, if you feel that Shoot Brazil should be given top-tier status, just start a new discussion by clicking "New Section" on the top of your screen and make your argument. After a week or two, we'll all come to a conensus on Yay or Nay and changes can be made. Personally I would have to look at the rankings again but one could at least argue second-tier status. Luchuslu (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Now i realized something about this criterion of WP:MMATIER: "Active organizations with multiple fighters ranked in the top 10 in any of the 7 weight classes were placed in the top tier". Only seven weight divisions are considered. I presume they are: 1- Heavyweight, 2- Light Heavyweight, 3- Middleweight, 4- Welterweight, 5- Lightweight, 6- Featherweight and 7- Bantamweight (that would explain why Tachi Palace Fights isn't considered top-tier). If is that so, should we increase to eight including the flyweight division? especially since now it's pretty solid in the UFC. Poison Whiskey 13:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree - Flyweight is an established division in the UFC, so it certainly should be added to the list of weight classes. Luchuslu (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree good catch. Yeah they are going to crown a champion soon too. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The divisions used were the only ones listed in the only widely accepted MMA rankings at the time, which was a poll of MMA writers and experts from a variety of sources (print and web). At that time sherdog had let its rankings get severely out of date (several years). Since sherdog now has up to date rankings, I think it's reasonable to use all the divisions listed by them. However, I don't think you can make revisionist claims about notability that are based on non-existent rankings. One can see the discrepencies between claims made earlier in this discussion and the actual data obtained at the time. I would suggest this non-Shooto part of the discussion would be better done in another section. I'd also recommend reading the historical footnote that's in a later section to give a better understanding of how these criteria were created. Papaursa (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To get back to the original topic, I certainly don't think you can claim that Shooto Finland (or Shooto Lithuania or Switizerland or Bulgaria, etc.) is the highest level of MMA. If you don't want to differentiate between the Shooto events, then you can take the view espoused earlier that none of the Shooto events should be considered top tier. Papaursa (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    I only think Shooto Brazil should be included as per the evidence I have presented earlier. there are articles on its founder Andre Pederneairis(sic) (also Jose Aldo's trainer, and leader of Nova Unaio, the gym bj penn got his black belt from) describing in length Shooto Brazil. Tachi Palace Fights and Pancrase too. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I am sure I've made this point somewhere before, but I want to make it again. If we are only using "multiple top ten fighters" as a guideline for top tier status, then that is a dumbfoundingly poor system. It should either be a significant percentage of top ten fighters (i.e. 30) or 10+ top ten fighters for a year or several years running. A single or even two or three top ten fighters at any one time is statistically incidental, and does not reflect on a promotion in any realistic way other than to say that several of the fighters under contract with them happened to be considered the worlds best for a short time or during their short tenure with the promotion. Saying a promotion is top tier because it has top fighters should be a judgement that is reflective of a promotion continually being the home of the worlds best talent, not just an incidental stopping point in several fighters careers.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that using a somewhat volatile measure like the number of top 10 fighters would be improved by say, taking a monthly average over 2 years. The drawback is that it would require the kind of bookkeeping that is usually frowned upon and I don't who would be keeping track of those numbers--especially when fighters often switch promotions. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Then why not just say a signifcant percentage at any given time (20-30%) we could even make it of the top 25 fighters in each division working of fightmatrix or something like that. At least making a requirement that a promotion must hold a significant portion of the world high level fighters would even this out somewhat. No matter what though, it wouldn't be hard to keep the books on this as the UFC and Bellator are the only promotions in the world right now to hold more than 1 to 5 of the top ten fighters in the world in any division.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fighters and Organizations Notability

Latest comment: 11 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

Our current rules say that a fighter needs at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations. We currently have Bellator, Shooto and UFC classified as top tier organizations. My question is, shouldn't UFC be considered one tier above all other organizations? Shouldn't someone who fights in UFC immediately be considered a notable fighter? Evenfiel (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's generally the case given that UFC contracts tend to be fairly selective. It's not a huge deal either way since those contracts tend to be for at least a couple fights. Agent00f (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Though it looks like Azamat Gashimov, who will have his first fight in a top tier organization on the UFC 154, will be deleted. If the rules were changed, then we wouldn't have cases like that anymore. Even champions like Jon Jones and Júnior dos Santos only fought in a top tier organization when they joined the UFC. Evenfiel (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Originally when wiki was started, it was designed to be broad and encyclopedic in a way that traditional paper ones couldn't. This is evident in the many technical open design decisions in the tools themselves. It wasn't until later once it already became much more popular that the visionary technocrats were squeezed out for/by folks from the paper world who feel that it should be limited and restrictive in the same way. It costs wiki absolutely nothing for a person from a significant event to be linked to a relevant bio as long as it's reasonably written, and it's exactly what any user would expect (ie basic enhancement of user experience). But alas project/design management skills or even recognition are not common in the old world. This will likely change back in due time as technology and demographics don't favor archaism. Agent00f (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of that change. One fight on a UFC card for an active fighter should meet notability, but if the fighter is cut after one or two fights then he or she could be deleted. To Evenfiel's point, Jon Jones wouldn't have been considered "notable" even after beating Stephan Bonnar on the main card at UFC 94. Luchuslu (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In this sense then, why don't we reorganise the ranking of promotions? So if we do it like this, then there will be much less debate over notability over fighters? -

Top Tier for promotions who have/had the majority (6/10 minimum) of all fighters ranked in the top-10 in a minimum of three divisions at any point. Any fighters who have competed for these promotions at least once will be deemed notable:

Active

UFC

Defunct

Pride Fighting Championships

Second Tier for promotions who have/had multiple fighters in the top-10 in multiple divisions compete for them at any point. Any fighters who compete for these promotions at least three times, or has fought for the highest title/s for any of these promotions will be deemed notable:

Active

Bellator Fighting Championships

Shooto

Strikeforce

Defunct

Affliction Entertainment

DREAM

Fighting Network Rings (RINGS) (events held between 1995 and 2002)

World Extreme Cagefighting (WEC)

World Victory Road: Sengoku Raiden Championship


Third Tier for promotions who have/had used any number of top-10 fighters, gained mainstream attention (usually gained from coverage by national or international newspapers), the leading promotion in their respected country, and/or agreed upon through consensus with other Wikipedians. Fighters who have won the highest title/s in any of these promotions, or fought for any of them a minimum of 5 times will be deemed notable:

Active

British Association of Mixed Martial Arts (BAMMA)

Cage Warriors

DEEP

Jungle Fight Championship

King of the Cage (KOTC)

Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW)

Maximum Fighting Championship (MFC)

M-1 Global, M-1 Challenge

ONE Fighting Championship

Pancrase

Shark Fights

Ultimate Challenge MMA (UCMMA)

Universal Reality Combat Championship (URCC)

Defunct

Cage Rage Championships

Elite XC

Palace Fighting Championship

Tachi Palace Fights

I think its the fairest system for MMA promotions, but what does everyone else think? Pound4Pound (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Pound4Pound blocked as a sock of the blocked BigzMMA ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It will be useful prior to a RFC if you demonstrate how you arrived at this, is it taken from a reliable source ? is it just your feeling ? Mtking (edits) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Compared to the current list, the only change was that UFC and Pride were moved to the top-tier. Just check any MMA ranking, and you'll easily see that UFC is a top tier league compared to the current active MMA organizations. As for Pride, it's a known fact that it was a top-tier MMA organization while it lasted. I don't think anyone would be against such a change. Evenfiel (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I felt that because the UFC is indeed in a world of its own compared to the other top tier promotions (the consensus number two world's biggest promotion, Bellator, actually gets less ratings on TV than the UFC does on their Facebook preliminary fights), and in addition to the fact that they pretty much own all the top-10 ranked fighters in each division they use, it is fair to say that the UFC is the true 'Top Tier' promotion. So because of this I felt the same as the proposing editior that the UFC truly does this distinction that any fighter who competes for them even once should be considered notable, like how any professional wrestler who competes for the WWE is notable. So for this reason I decided that we should keep them at top tier (whats higher than the top after all?), re-standardise the top tier status so that it truly belongs to the elite of the elite, which would basically mean that any promotion that has or had the majority of top-10 fighters (6/10 minimum) in at least 3 divisions (such as the UFC and PRIDE), then rename the present top tier that the UFC and PRIDE has left and rename them second tier, keeping the criteria for them, then rename second tier to third tier, and be much more clearer on what sort of promotions can be considered in addition to saying consensus will also help decide it being third tier or not. Also by deciding that any fighters who WIN the highest title/s in any of these promotions rather than fight for them continues our tradition of keeping notability strong. What does everyone else think? Pound4Pound (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Pound4Pound blocked as a sock of the blocked BigzMMA ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I support this change. Evenfiel (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, first and foremost, Tachi Palace Fights isn't defunct, that's a problem. Shooto never has been or should be considered Top Tier or even Second Tier on the level of Bellator or Strikeforce. Their talent pool and media coverage have never come close to approaching either of those promotions. M-1 Global should be considered Second Tier. They regularly generate a large amount of coverage between Russian press and American press. They have regularly hosted former Pride and UFC fighters, and they are the largest promotion in Russia/Eastern Europe. And they are regularly generating fighters that feature prominently in Bellator. Also, Shark Fights is defunct. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone who's been involved in the notability discussions for several years, I'd like to make a few comments based on the history of these discussions. First, is that the original discussion settled on two tiers because there was a limited desire to slice and dice the organizations too finely. In a way, there was a third unwritten tier--everything that wasn't first or second tier. The tiers were based on objective data with the standards being set by MMA editor consensus. Those criteria are spelled out at WP:MMANOT along with the obsevation that MMA organizations come and go and an organization's tier is not carved in stone (but should only be changed by consensus). As for fighters, there was clear agreement to use only top tier organizations as a basis. This was to be in line with all other sports which say notability can only be achieved by competing at the highest level. As for the 3 fight limit, it's well known that the UFC is constantly signing new fighters for 2 fight contracts and it was felt that a notable fighter should be able to compete at the top for longer than a minimal tryout. Most of these discussions can be found in the archives of this page and in the archives of WT:MMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If we go with a three tiered system, we already have examples of sports that say that notability can be reached by playing in leagues that are not the highest. For example, in soccer, it's only required that the league is fully professional. It doesn't need to be a top-league. Just look at WP:FPL. Evenfiel (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This may be the case, but it is not readily apparent here. In this essay it appears that the only guidelines are how many "top ten" fighters a promotion has. What list is used and how that is even established isn't present. Whatever the methodology may be it needs to be crystal clear and I would say that it needs to be based on established notoriety through sourcing and then potentially notable fighters and history, but only as secondary measures.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
These discussions started back in 2009 and the rankings used were specified during the discussions. Several websites were using the same set of rankings done by a panel of MMA reporters. Sherdog was not used because, at the time (if I recall properly), their rankings hadn't been updated for a year or two. I think using clearly stated rankings is the way to go because it shows where the top fighters are fighting and the consensus belief that a fighter can't be fighting at the highest level if he's not fighting the top fighters. This all started because of the desire for a simple and objective notability standard for fighters and organizations. Papaursa (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
And the argument could be, has been, and will be made that a fighter's place on a top ten list is largely due to the organization he fights for. Thus this becomes a circular list in which fighters are notable for fighting in top organizations and organizations are notable for having top fighters. Also, at this point, the UFC is the only organization that has fighters continually in the top 10 of most lists (bellator fighters come and go, others make very rare appearances). So this method could only clearly establish the UFC as a "Top tier organization while adding little, if any clarity for the rest of MMA. No matter what system we use this may continue to be the case. But organizational importance should be established independent of what fighters happen to be competing for them at any particular moment. A structure based upon coverage and available information will be difficult to establish, but provide a much firmer grounding for this project.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
A three tiered system based on rankings would be easier to deal with than one based based upon coverage and available information. Evenfiel (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment MMANOT was created because there was nothing for MMA in WP:NSPORTS. When I look at the historical discussions it appears that the driving force was to establish an objective way of determining whether or not MMA fighters were notable. Using rankings still appears to be the best way to determine notability. For example, WP:NBOX says fighters need to be ranked in the top 10 by Ring magazine. MMA could adopt that standard, but it would be more exclusive than the current one and many editors seem to want looser not stricter standards. I think the current one is pretty good and allows plenty of fighters to qualify while still staying in the neighborhood of WP:ATH which says athletes must compete at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Motion to promote EliteXC to second-tier status. Going purely by rankings criteria, it had the two top female fighters in the world at the time (Gina Carano and Cris Cyborg), as well as then-top 10 MWs Robbie Lawler and Scott Smith, as well as then-top 20 HWs Antonio "Bigfoot" Silva and Roy Nelson, then-top 10 HW Andrei Arlovski, then-top 10 WW Jake Shields, then-top 20 WW Nick Diaz, and prospects in Rafael "Feijao" Cavalcante, Brett Rogers, Mike Pyle, Zack Makovsky, Paul Daley, and Dave Herman and other notable fighters in KJ Noons, David Loiseau, Yves Edwards, Phil Baroni, Frank Shamrock, and Murilo Rua. This is notwithstanding the considerable media attention it gained from Kimbo Slice. They also had U.S. television deals with Showtime and broadcast network CBS, the latter of which was unprecedented. Yes, I'm aware that the promotion built itself on the obvious house of cards that was Kimbo Slice, and thus probably doomed to fail from the start, but that's neither here nor there and frankly I'm baffled how this promotion is considered to be on a lower tier than Bellator or Sengoku. It satisfies the criteria of multiple Top 10 fighters in multiple divisions, got mainstream sporting coverage, had an unprecedented broadcast deal, and made landmark progress for Women's MMA with Gina Carano. It had at least two top 10 fighters in three different divisions (if you include Women's Featherweight), and at least one in another. Furthermore, however you feel about promoter Gary Shaw, EliteXC made a few demonstrable contributions to the development of the sport (that it also set it back in a few ways does not detract from its significance as an organization). Beansy (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The criteria that a promotion may qualify for Third Tier if it is "the leading promotion in their respected country" seems a bit overly inclusive. I know there's MMA in Mexico but I couldn't name a single promotion out of there. As such, I'm not sure how else URCC qualifies for the list. Did it gain mainstream attention in its native Philippines? Real question, since I don't know. I know that MMA is big there, but that doesn't mean its local promotions are. Also, as far as Top 10 fighters go, the only way they qualify is if we're counting male Strawweights (115 lbs.), for which Rey Docyogen probably qualifies, but I am not even aware of any notable places that rank Mens Strawweight (if you know of one I'd love to be proven wrong). Beansy (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Docyogen is actually a Pinweight (119) which is totally unranked. The only argument I would see for URCC and it is a similar one for Score Fighting Series, Jungle Fight, Super Fight League, KSW, Legacy FC, RUFF, Road FC, WSOF, and Cage Warriors. Is that they are the subject of routine coverage by reputable MMA news outlets. There is a lot of information about these organizations, how they started up, who runs them how they're organized, etc. Unlike, for instance, the EFCA, ZST, Cage Force, Pro FC, Finn Fight, whatever might be in Mexico, etc. So I would have to support a routine coverage guideline for third tier status. I think if a reasonable amount of coverage is available for events put on by small/regional promotions they should qualify to be at least third tier.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
His system, or tiered system are both fine ideas, except that they are entirely opinion based. If he can provide a clear concise reasoning for his ranking system I'd be all for it, something that shows exactly what criteria each organization must meet to be worth x number of points, etc. I'm not saying this is the best way to do things, but this is the system I developed for ranking the List of current mixed martial arts champions. Talk:List of current mixed martial arts champions#List Order. I would want to see a similar level of transparency as to why exactly organizations are given a certain value.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see the WFA added to second tier as well as K-1 Heros. Maybe take a look at the 4 WFA events and see that they had top flight competition including Rich FRanklin, Machida, Antonio Mckee,Trigg, Marvin Eastman,Vitor Ribioero, Valetijn Overeem , Kimo, Joey Villasenor, Jeff Curran, Mike Van Arsdale, Razor Rob, Josh Thompson, Dennis Hallman, Lindland, Rampage, Ricco Rodriguez, Mayhem Miller, Bas Rutten, and MArtin Kampmann. Wow! I was actually surprised at maybe a fourth of those until I looked for myself just now. I think even tho they only had 4 events, with their high concentration of outstanding fighters they should be top tier for the same reason as Affliction. It was the Affliction of its time. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I see the guy who proposed the Three-Tier guidelines with UFC And PrideFC has had all this comments stricken through per (suspected?) sock-puppetry. While abusive use of a sock is unfortunate, I have to say that I do still like the idea of 3 Tiers with the UFC and PrideFC specifically being on their own level due to the unique historical significance of the two promotions, as historically they have been far and away the two largest in terms of revenue, media attention, viewership, credible talent, and general contributions to the development and evolution of the sport (that last category is far more the UFC but whatever). Basically I'm saying I'm all for continuing the discussion of reworking biographic notability via a three-tier system with UFC and Pride being on a top super-tier. Also, ultimately, I'm just curious, who would actually be the one to implement any changes to the MMA Notability criteria? Because perhaps I am blind but I find that rather unclear at the moment. Beansy (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Even though I also prefer a three tier system, why not making the current second tier more relevant? Maybe that would be easier to implement. For example, while an athlete needs to fight 3 times in a top tier organization to be considered a notable fighter, we could implement a change that considers 9 bouts in a second tier organization enough to meet notability as well (or 1 or 2 bouts in a top tier organization plus 6 or 3 in a second tier). Evenfiel (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no suspected about it, the guy was/is BigzMMA. As for how the change should be made, given the fire-storm prospects that any change could set off, the only way is to formulate a clear and concise wording, first get a consensus on this page for it and then open it up to a wiki-wide RfC. As per my comment when it was proposed, there will need to be a demonstration that just one fight for UFC is going to show that the subject meets the WP:GNG, to do that you will need to find some fighters that meet WP:GNG but fail the existing notability test otherwise two things will happen, firstly it stands less chance of passing and secondly even if it does pass subjects are still liable to being deleted for not having sufficient reliable sources to write a NPOV BIO. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, just to clarify, I have four questions then: 1) I assume that the sock was proven by a matching IP address and was differentiated from a college roommate or something? I only ask because clicking on the profile link it merely says "suspected," and he really hasn't acted much like a typical sock here, so it was a bit surprising. 2) Have there actually been firestorms here that haven't had to do with deleting content or images? The notability guidelines have been relatively civil and relatively there doesn't seem to be nearly the same level of contention, at least in my opinion (for the record I actually don't think just a single fight in the UFC is inherently notable for a biography, but the tier-system and general notability criteria could use some revamping; the Jon Jones example mentioned above is a particularly good one). 3) Have all or the vast majority of Notability guidelines across every WP project been subjected to similar guidelines, and/or do all of those generally adhere to them, and have they always been opened to wiki-wide RfCs? Because if this isn't something that can be efficiently decided on by an admin this seems like a waste of everyone's time. As it is, anyone on WP can partake in this discussion so an RfC actually seems redundant at best and the source of a firestorm at worse if it comes after a consensus is reached here. 4) Also, I'm just curious, after 18 months you still haven't answered what your interest is in MMA. You clearly do not watch or take an interest in the sport itself nor have you demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the subject. You appear to be editing purely for the sake of Wikipedian editing, which is fine and dandy, but that also seems to be the great majority of what I'm guessing may be a five-digit number of edits you've made. Any particular motivation for why you're sticking to this subject? Because in theory Wikipedia is not a battleground, or a bureaucracy, or about winning but theory just doesn't seem to match the reality shown here. It can't possibly surprise you when even veteran editors accuse you of taking part in a witchhunt when stumbling into this mess for the first time. So, assuming good faith on your part don't you think letting folks know what your interest is might make this whole debate less contentious, and reduce the ridiculous amounts of drama around here? Beansy (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, your questions were met with silence. Evenfiel (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment In the "Doing away with the tiered system" section below I have added a historical comment explaining why and how the existing guidelines were created. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotion from Essay to Guideline

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion
WP:SNOW consensus is Oppose. All responding editors oppose, and guidelines need unambiguous consensus for promotion. Non-admin close by request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Proposed: That the essay formerly known as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (AKA:WP:MMANOT) be promoted to the status of guideline. Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The subject at hand has been discussed an improved for at least a year (having been discussed previously at WP:DRN and various other boards), with improvement. It has been brought up recently that this is not a guideline, but a essay that is free to be disregarded at the editors discretion. I feel that the consensus that has been hammered out here and applied at various AfDs, and DRVs demonstrates that there is a broad consensus endorsing the reasonableness of this being upgraded to a guideline (which suggests that the user follow it (unless there's a real good reason why not). Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a real quick quesiton: what does this essay saying about the numbered events articles (eg UFC 149) which seem to have been the biggest issue outside MMA? --MASEM (t) 18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That would be listed in the Individual Events section.

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

While this will probably be updated once the process that is being hammered out at Wikipedia_talk:MMA#Version 4 will help clarify the process for creating/dealing with the MMA events. Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(Trying to help, not criticize here): If this is going to trend towards deletion/merging of the event articles, then, and following what I believe is acceptable as making "YYYY in UFC" articles to summarize this, you might want to add this advice, as to show that its not we can't include the event at all but that an appropriate summary is suitable. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Can I assume this meets with your approval regarding how to not delete when it's marginal? Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In a similar trying to help, not criticise, would this better wait until after the current debate at WT:MMA ? Mtking (edits) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say no for the following reason: Several users have decided that because this essay is only an essay they can disregard it entirely (as opposed to a guideline). As evidenced above this is quantifying the notability for the fighters and promotions in addition to the discussion at WT:MMA which is quantifying the procedure for dealing with stand alone articles. Hasteur (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this essay has three main sections: Organizations, Fighters, and Individual Events. Each of these sections is redundant with an existing secondary notability guideline - WP:ORG, WP:NMMA (which is where the redirect WP:MMANOT should actually point to), and WP:ORG. Why is there a perceived need to have a stand-alone, unique guideline for this sport when none is needed for any other sport? The portion of this essay that is useful and should remain (as an essay not a guideline) is the section that identifies the organizations that comprise the highest professional levels in the sport. I think WP:NFOOTBALL, which links to the essay WP:FPL, is an excellent choice to use as a model. Concerns about the need for a dedicated guideline aside, I have concerns about this specific guideline as well. The section on organizations, in particular, seems to have several criteria that do not align well with WP:ORG. VQuakr (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - merge all nonredundant info into Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the only real part we need is the one about organizations. The rest is just redundant. Evenfiel (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment MMANOT was created because there was nothing for MMA in WP:NSPORTS. When I look at the historical discussions it appears that the driving force was to establish an objective way of determining whether or not MMA fighters were notable. Jakejr (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I don't agree with the tier system, and I don't see why women and men are seperate now that women have been fighting in strikeforce and Bellator for quuit some time now. Not to mention the upcoming UFC fight. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose guidelines on topics this specific. If you have agreement from a majority of editors (consensus) on any edit that should guide the content. If you don't, get community input on a notice board or at Dispute Resolution. This seems to be an attempt to formalize and standardize a consensus which is not what a guideline does or is. Guidelines are more overarching than this, more generalized.(olive (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC))
  • Failed I believe this entire attempt to promote this to a guideline has failed miserably and should be noted as such. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose — There are still several issues about this essay, mainly on notability of events (just check the project's talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts). Poison Whiskey 21:01, 10 January 2013 (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.

Proposal to add Shooto Brazil to top-tier

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
  • I believe the criterion is multiple top ranked fighters having fought for your promotion. this passes. Now here is a plethora of references that you can comb through at your leisure that would lend credibility to the assertion that Shooto Brazil should be considered top tier.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15


  • Disagree - lets take these arguments one at a time
1. Bellator Bantamweight champion Eduardo Dantas was upset by Tyson Nam at Fight for BOPE 2.
2. Jussier da Silva used to fight for them.
3. A press release from a sports agency says they're the largest MMA organization in Brazil.
4. Your interpretation of the criteria for top tier
5. A long list of sources
Just because an organization used to have some very talented fighters that the UFC signed doesn't mean that it should be considered top tier. If that were the case, we'd have to include Legacy FC, Ring of Combat, Extreme Challenge and a number of other organizations that have churned out top prospects over the years. Also, your sources were mostly over six months old. The organization has put on three shows since Fight for BOPE 2 in August, one of which was headlined by Ismael de Jesus (8-3-1) defending his 183 lb. title against Juliano Dimas da Silva (4-5).
And finally, I could only find one active fighter (Tyson Nam) who is considered top ten at his weight class, while none of the six current champions are in the top ten. I couldn't find a full roster, however, because the Shooto Brazil website is one page featuring zero links and no fighter bios. Luchuslu (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is it that based on what you are saying you have to nominate something when it is at it's apex. According to wikipedia notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I realise this is for article notability guidelines but the principal of the matter remains the same. It's this kind of thinking which leads us to assert that Chuck Liddell was overrated or not very good to begin with just because he had a long downturn at the end. Formiga was really putting Shooto Brazil on the map. Then you have Siyar the World champ defending his Shooto belt in Shooto Brazil. That leads me to believe that Shooto Brazil is on par with "normal" Shooto as far as prestige go. There is no presumed loss of notability when moving from Bellator or Shooto to Shooto Brazil, so that is why I think it should be top tier.
So once again, because the promotion USED to have multiple top ten fighters, but has only one now (Tyson Nam), it should be considered top tier now? Also, WP:NOTTEMPORARY is being taken gravely out of context. That's so people don't try to delete something like an article about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting because it isn't getting as much coverage as it was on Dec. 15. The same section of WP:N says notability should be reassessed from time to time. Luchuslu (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah if we're trying to determine whether they're top tier right this minute. Then the only fighter they have is Tyson Nam, and that wouldn't qualify for Multiple.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It is people like you who discredit fighter's who once were, but aren't currently top ten. Sad really. The article I presented clearly says he was top ten, as well as Formiga. Something tells me you people aren't mma fans as much as you are UFC fans. Probably were Pride fans after they closed up shop, if at all. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I am getting so tired of all the lip service given to how much of a "real fan" you are compared to everyone else. You keep trying to game these systems (which admittedly are very poor systems) in order to make points and serve interests that I'm not even sure I understand. This (poor) system, for instance, requires that at the time a promotion is declared top tier it has multiple top ten fighters under contract. Very specifically it has to be at the time you want to declare it top tier, not retroactively, not based on speculation, but right now, it has to have multiple top ten fighters. It doesn't, but even if it did, Do you honestly feel like the "top tier" section of this system is too thin, that there are other massive promotions that we're not seeing because we don't "get" the sport, or are you just looking at the guidelines as they stand and cramming things into them to see what fits?Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Definitely cramming. Much like how Shooto proper got crammed in. At least you admit the system is very poor; I can respect that. I wouldn't call it gaming the system. I was asked to cite a top ten fighter who fought for Shooto brazil while being top ten. I did. They asked if I could find another, and I did. Then the requirement creep said they have to currently be top ten. Was Pride still operating when these tiers were made? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously you can't measure top ten fighters from this moment if the promotion is defunct. The essay was negotiated with the general acceptance that Pride had top ten throughout most of its existance. Whoever said you had to name fighters who used to fight for Shooto Brazil was mistaken. Luchuslu (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to address the issue on PortlandOregon97217's talk page, but he immediately deleted by comment. Luchuslu (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Darn right I did. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It's clear you aren't interested in civility. That is your choice. Luchuslu (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA notability becoming to exclusionistic?

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi guys, I haven't commented here in a while, but as someone who has been editing MMA for years, I would like to comment that MMA notability standards seems to have gotten to be one of the strictest in professional sports. It seems that for anyone to be included on Wikipedia they must be a UFC veteran or have significant media coverage. However, looking at the guidelines from other sports:

Baseball:

  1. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct).
  2. Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association.

Basketball:

  1. Have appeared in one game in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league.
  2. Were selected in the NBA Draft.
  3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League (minor leagues).


Finally if we look at Association Football/Soccer, it seems that any player that has ever played in league more than semi-professional is included in its notability. (Justinsane15 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC))

Hi Justinsane15. You missed a very big discussion if you're adding your opinion now. There are certainly a lot of people who will agree with you that the WP:NMMA guideline is extremely strict. You may want to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 8, and then search the ANI board for "MMA", to unearth all the drama and final route we got to placing NMMA. Many consider it still not dried ink on the page. Not saying I'm either for or against the guideline, merely that it was a fairly drawn out and stressful process for people a couple of months ago. Mkdwtalk 08:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, to be fair we cannot compare players of a team to MMA fighters since it's not a team sports. You would be comparing sports teams as a whole against MMA fighters; in which if a team only ever had 1 pro game it wouldn't be considered notable. The closest guideline to cite would be WP:NBOX if you wanted to set a precedent but this was all discussed in those talk archives as mentioned above. Mkdwtalk 04:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighters don't need to meet WP:NMMA at all. The main criteria for notability of Wikipedia is WP:N (WP:GNG specifically). WP:NSPORTS serves as an objective criteria for athletes, but it's based on WP:N... sports receive coverage differently, so you should find some discrepancies between the sport-specific guidelines. IMO the current guideline is very inclusive, it supports not only fighters from the UFC, but from every top-tier organization per WP:MMATIER. Poison Whiskey 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to add an example: Antonio McKee doesn't meet WP:NMMA but was able to come through after two AfD discussions. Poison Whiskey 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's the exact article I'd use as the example as the consensus was 'no consensus' and not keep. Also, I never suggested WP:NMMA superseded GNG. In fact, NMMA is the guideline to establish whether the person meets GNG as quoted in line of the page, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Also, "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ". Just pointing that out so we don't get in an argument over a misunderstanding and a sidetrack to the OPs question. Mkdwtalk 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not clarifying, i haven't hinted anything about what you said. I was just pointing WP:GNG to Justinsane15 (and also gave my opinion about WP:NMMA). No consensus defaults to keep, so i think McKee is a valid example. Poison Whiskey 12:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fighting Network RINGS Clarification

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Do we need to clarify that Fighting Network RINGS as a top tier organization only refers to the Japanese events? The way the tiers are written now, you could interpret Rings Lithuania as a top tier organization, which doesn't seem accurate given the level of events that they held. CaSJer (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the organization worked much like Shooto back then (the branches favored mostly local fighters). I would support only the original RINGS and maybe RINGS Holland on the top-tier. Poison Whiskey 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree--only the original RINGS should be considered notable. I think the comparison to Shooto is apt. Papaursa (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the same agreement that the original RINGS should be recognized and maybe Holland, but the others should be excluded. Mkdwtalk 05:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It may be that Rings Holland is notable, but the original discussion was about the original Rings. I'd have to do more research to know about Rings Holland. It may be like Shooto Brazil--the best of the offshoots, but still not the original. I think we should go with the obvious consensus and limit top tier to the original Rings.Mdtemp (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Like I pointed out in the previous AfD, RINGS didn't have offshoot organizations like Shooto. Also, RINGS had shows in Russia (with Fedor Emelianenko), Australia (with Elvis Sinosic) and Georgia (with Volk Han). Their events in the USA and Holland generally featured all regular RINGS fighters. Examples are here and here. However, the events in Lithuania featured fewer notable fighters than the rest, so I would Support removing the Lithuania events only. Obviously if a consensus is agreed to remove RINGS events in Lithuania, I will adjust my votes in the AfDs. Luchuslu (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note that having a name fighter doesn't make a promotion notable. However, it appears to be unanimous that Shooto Lithuania events are not notable, so I would say go ahead and change your AFD vote. If you really want, I could change the Rings listing at WP:MMATIER, but I'd prefer to reach a complete consensus and change the tier listing only once. Never mind, I'll just change it now and we can reach further agreement later.Mdtemp (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I admit I'm no expert on RINGS, but I must say I'm not a big fan of too much slicing and dicing. I'll go with consensus, but I doubt that all of the Rings subgroups can be considered top tier and I doubt that Lithuania is the only one that isn't top tier. I would suggest that all RINGS subgroups be considered not top tier unless consensus agrees otherwise (WP:BURDEN). Papaursa (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me, but I'm not changing the top tier status again until I see consensus.Mdtemp (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's some research - I can live with Rings Lithuania and Georiga being removed from top-tier status, possibly Australia as well. But Holland, USA and Russia are undoubtedly on-par with the events in Japan.
I counted 16 Rings Holland events which featured many veterans from the Japan events, including but not limited to Akira Maeda (the founder of RINGS), Yoshihisa Yamamoto, Masayuki Naruse, Tsuyoshi Kohsaka, Wataru Sakata, Kiyoshi Tamura (Mega Battle Tournament 1997 champion and 2x Openweight champion) and Hiromitsu Kanehara. I know having notable fighters doesn't make an organization notable per say, but the fact that fighters who primarily fought in the Japan events made at least one appearance in Rings Holland should stand for something. And that's not even counting the notable Dutch fighters who appeared in Holland and Japan events like Alistair Overeem, Valentijn Overeem, Gilbert Yvel (Openweight champion) and Hans Nijman just to name a few.
There were only four Rings USA also featured notable fighters who fought in both the USA and Japan events, such as Tsuyoshi Kosaka, Chris Haseman, Jeremy Horn, Bobby Hoffman (Rising Stars Heavyweight Tournament 2000 champion), Travis Fulton, Hiromitsu Kanehara, Valentijn Overeem and Yasuhito Namekawa just to name a few. But some of the most notable fighters to compete in Rings USA events were Matt Hughes, Dave Menne and Rich Franklin, three UFC champions.
In five Rings Russia events, the fighters who competed both there and in the Japan events were Bob Schrijber, Volk Han (2x Tournament champion), Chris Haseman, Travis Fulton, Valentijn Overeem, Renato Sobral, Mikhail Ilyukhin, Yasuhito Namekawa, Alistair Overeem, Fedor Emelianenko (2x Tournament champion and Openweight champion), Achmed Labasanov, Bazigit Atajev.
There were four Rings Australia events featuring Hans Nijman, Ryuki Ueyama, Chris Haseman, Yasuhito Namekawa and Matt Hughes. However, a majority of the fighters were not notable.
There was just one event in Georgia with Yasuhito Namekawa, Volk Han and Mikhail Ilyukhin. The rest of the fighters were less than notable. Luchuslu (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Making World Series of Fighting a Second-Tier MMA Organization

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Now three shows into its existence, the WSOF has two fighters in Sherdog's top ten rankings for June 17, 2013. Although technically that could qualify the promotion for top-tier status, I feel it would be more appropriate to designate then as second-tier for the time being with the option to give them a boost if they continue to sign and develop notable over the next year or so. I give strong Support to this idea and would like the rest of the community's imput. Luchuslu (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Second Tier ONLY The relative youth of the organization and the fact that these organizations either take off like wildfire or atrophy in a 18 month period suggests in my mind that while they are a somewhat notable organization, they have yet to reach the pinnacle of the MMA orginzation piramid. I would note that there are other more well established promotions that are more deserving of Tier 1 status than WSoF from my reading. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — WSOF in the second tier. Poison Whiskey 16:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — makes sense. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'm a bit skeptical of their long-term survival, even if they aren't overspending on purse money, but objectively they have a reasonable number of credible and/or well-known fighters (including two or so that could be considered top 10 fighters in their respective divisions), are one of the higher profile organizations out there, and critically, they have a tv deal with NBC Sports Network that apparently is not just a time-buy. While NBC Sports is still a second-tier cable network at best, being under the NBC Sports umbrella in general is a significant achievement. Anyway second-tier is fine in my opinion (certainly not Top Tier though). Beansy (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think WSOF is off to a promising start. It's clearly not top tier.Mdtemp (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If there aren't any objections (and since a majority of active contributors have voted) I'll go ahead and move it to second-tier. Luchuslu (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to organizational notability table

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I was wonder what others thought of the changes that were just made to the organizational notability tables. My concern is that the table makes the assumption that all organizations are equally notable for both men and women. I think that's a bad assumption, but I don't want to revert the tables without hearing from others. The previous tables showed that organizations were not always equally notable for men and women. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, I would agree with you. But the table does go through the effort of checking off which gender it's notable for. Is it perfect? No. But it's not a big enough issue for me to want it changed. The bigger issue I have is that it was changed without even attempting a consensus on the talk page. That's not a precedent I'd like to see set. Luchuslu (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the table merely lists that the organization has fights for a particular gender, not that the organization is notable for that gender. For example, neither KSW nor One FC was listed as a second tier organization for women. I believe this new chart gives incorrect information as it now stands. I also agree with your comment about people making unilateral changes, especially IPs. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, the table should be fixed to reflect only the organizations deemed notable for that particular gender's fights. I'll fix that. Luchuslu (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Making Jewels a Top-Tier MMA Organization

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

The July 1, 2013 results for the Unified Woman'e Mixed Martial Arts Rankings has nine fighters features in the top ten of their weight division, including five in the top five of their divisions. When WP:MMANOT was established, the standard for a top-tier women's organization was "Active organizations with at least three fighters ranked in the top 5 (regardless of weight class)." I feel that with the minimum surpasses, as well with the organization's agreement to share fighters with current top-tier organization Invicta FC, Jewels should be moved to the top-tier. Please let me know what you all think. Luchuslu (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I found only 2 fighters ranked in the top 5 who fought their last fight for Jewels (the last fight has always been the organization assigned for a fighter)--Ham and Sugiyama who fought each other at Jewels 24. That doesn't seem to meet the 3 fighter criteria. The fact that 4 of the top 10 featherweights have 3 or fewer fights (most for small organizations) shows why the top 5 was the criteria used. I do think Jewels is close but I don't think they meet the criteria agreed on earlier. If there's another top 5 fighter who last fought for Jewels, then I'll support the move. I'll admit the Invicta-Jewels agreement muddies the waters. I'd prefer not to lower the organizational criteria, although personally I'm fine with articles on female MMA fighters ranked in the world top 5. I know that technically doesn't agree with NMMA, but I've supported articles for male top 10 fighters (MMA and kickboxers) because that seems reasonable to me. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
True, the usual standard is the most recent fight. But fighters in Japan (especially female fighters) generally have open contracts where they can compete for multiple organizations while being signed to one. Fujii is a perfect example: she's under contract for both Bellator and Jewels but fought in the annual Vale Tudo Japan event most recently, an event with fighters from many different organizations (we had the same conversation when promoting Bellator to top-tier for WMMA). Kikuyo Ishikawa has spent her entire career at Jewels, but has split time with Pancrase recently as well. Also, Ayaka Hamasaki's fight in Invicta was part of the previously-mentioned fighter sharing program with that organization. Luchuslu (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was still writing my previous comment when I got an edit conflict. Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
In light of the changing women's MMA landscape, what about counting Jewels fights as top tier from now on? Perhaps use July 1 of this year as the cutoff. Something similar was done for the men with RINGS. I'll admit this is an attempt to find a middle ground since I find myself on both sides of the fence. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
That's certainly a possibility, especially due to the organization's recent cross-promotion efforts. Another option could be to count titlists and title contenders as top-tier, but not set the three-fight notability standard, especially because some fighters who meet that would have a tough time meeting WP:GNG (like Celine Haga). Hopefully we all can hammer out an agreement that makes sense for WP:MMA and Wiki as a whole. Luchuslu (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Since these tiers were just agreed on late last year, it doesn't seem right that Jewels fights that weren't notable then become suddenly notable now because of a new agreement. However, since Jewels seems to be just on the wrong side on organizational notability, I'd be OK with Jewels title fights being considered top tier--not tournament fights, just the ones that actually determine a world title. Those fights could be listed in the top tier box to distinguish them from run of the mill Jewels fights. Don't mistake this for saying that any second tier title fight helps establish notability, this only applies to Jewels because it keeps being on the borderline and because of the new Invicta agreement.Mdtemp (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The new agreement is just one of my points, but I see what you mean. I would support making participants in Jewels title bouts pass WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I like the ideas of Luchuslu and Mdtemp better than my proposal. I favor adding Jewels title fights to the top tier list. It would be nice to see some additional opinions. Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So just to clarify, this proposal would make Jewels a top-tier organization only in Section 2 of WP:NMMA, meaning a fighter would be considered notable if she has "fought for the highest title of (Jewels)." Also, would this count for fighters who won MMA tournaments in Jewels, like Mika Nagano? Traditionally winning a Grand Prix is on par with a title for Japanese organizations, plus just counting title contestants would only make six total fighters notable in the organization. Luchuslu (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It probably bears noting that JEWELS is no longer in business and has been folded into DEEP. It is not an active organization anymore. Beansy (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I guess you're right. Just found this article. I would still argue for partial top-tier status for Jewels as described in my last post, but as a defunct organization, and wait on DEEP to see how it goes. Maybe after two or three events we can reassess its viability. Luchuslu (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd read that Jewels had been bought by DEEP, but I thought they might keep the Jewels name. As far as notability goes, I'd rather that Jewels title fights just be counted as top tier, but I'm willing to compromise and say that the Jewels title fights are sufficient to show notability. Therefore, I've withdrawn my AfD nomination for Mika Nagano.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I think that's a fair compromise. So the final proposal is: Jewels fighters who have A) fought for a championship with the organization or B) Won an MMA tournament with the organization are considered notable (I think we can agree that any shoot boxing or kickboxing tournaments are under the jurisdiction of WP:KICK). I'll leave this up for a final vote for a few more days in hopes that more than just the four of us are involved in the decision. Luchuslu (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, its been five days, so I guess the consensus has been reached. Will make the appropriate changes for limited top-tier status. Also moving Jewels to the Defunct category, since Beansy correctly noted they were absorbed by Deep and are no longer active. Luchuslu (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Women's MMA pre-dating current Tier A standards

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Current Tier A standards for women's bouts only extend over the past 5 years. As a result, it is being argued at Articles for deletion/Jennifer Howe that Jennifer Howe fails to reach the standard for Notability. She was regarded as one of the top WMMA in the world during her career, but her career entirely pre-dates the current Tier A standards for women's fights. I think women's standards need further development apart from the men's standards in order to better give credit to Smackgirl, HOOKnSHOOT and other organizations that had a high number of high-level women's fights before the current era. BigKennyK (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You can see my comments about this at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Jennifer Howe. She had no top tier fights for the organizations that did exist then (Strikeforce and Smackgirls/Jewels). Even if you counted HooknShoot as top tier, and there's no reason we should, she still wouldn't meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's clear that Jennifer Howe doesn't meet WP:NMMA, even with a generous allotment of top tier organizations. As far as a more general discussion, I'd be willing to discuss adding older organizations if they can be shown to meet the same criteria that the existing ones did, i.e. "organizations with at least three fighters ranked in the top 5". That is based on an independent world ranking and means that the 3 must have been ranked at the same time. If sources are found that show an organization met that criteria, those organizations should certainly be discussed. Since Smackgirls was the forerunner of Jewels, I would be willing to consider applying the same criteria, i.e. fighting for a Smackgirls world title would count as a top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing Notability

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I believe 1 fight with the UFC should be sufficient for notability, thoughts? KO (Punches) (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The UFC can randomly hire any schlub of the street and give them a single fight, that doesn't give them the enduring notability necessary to qualify for a wikipedia article. I see you've hidden this discussion about a change to notability far away from the well monitored locations, so I'll drop a note on the main MMA talk page so that others can weigh in. Barring a significant demonstration that every single fighter who has at least 1 fight for UFC is notable, I'm firmly on the No side. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This topic has been beaten to death--the notability standards were clearly (and painfully) established by consensus. I see no reason to change them.Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the previous two comments. The current notability criteria were hammered out over a period of time and represent a solid consensus of WP users. The number three was carefully chosen and discussed for the number of top tier fights required--you can search the archives for those discussions (both here and at WT:MMA).
Well allow me to retort. Schlub from the street or not, notability not ability is what allows a fighters to have a page on Wikipedia. The UFC is, I'm sure you will all agree, the most notable of all MMA organisations and by default will be more verifiable using references, likewise most users coming to Wikipedia for information will most likely be browsing pages relating to fighters who have competed in said organisation. Sadly it seems like the three posters above have already made up their mind. Thanks KO (Punches) (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the bare minimum must be at least 2 fights per WP:1E / WP:BLP1E. I would agree with that, as it would be more consistent with the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG — multiple sources are generally expected, but there isn't a fixed number. I presume that the minimum acceptable are 2 reliable sources... 1 per event if we take a basic stub entry as an example; WP:BIO / WP:BLP — as stated in 1E / BLP1E, we should generally avoid having articles on people whom are significant for their role in only a single event). Poison Whiskey 17:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to change the existing criteria. I do question the reasoning of using 2 fights because that would mean 2 reliable sources--most MMA coverage clearly falls under WP:ROUTINE, which means even 1000 sources wouldn't show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability/Archive_8&oldid=1142516945"