Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Complete analysis follows.

OK. Argument for deletion (distilled down) is:

1. Sources are all PR recitations, thus failing WP:N. (As a side point, an article based on these would also fail WP:V, although the nominator doesn't make this point).
2. Hasn't happened yet, so WP:CRYSTAL would preclude.
3. Coverage is routine, so WP:NEVENT applies.

Now, we go down the arguments.

1. Lukeno94 identifies two sources that he believes may qualify. Upon examination, both sources are really about Ronda Rousey, not UFC 157. No strong weight for this one either way.
2. Mdkw reaches for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and neglects to mention the other two future UFC events, neither of which have articles). No weight whatsoever.
3. Buickcenturydriver expresses an opinion, but provides no justification. No weight whatsoever.
4. LlamaAl points out this is the first female event, a fact of no interest in evaluating sourcing and policy. However, he also points out that the the "almost certain to exist" clause would preclude applying WP:CRYSTAL, but fails to consider notability as the prerequisite for that statement. This view has to be considered, weighting uncertain.
5. Moriori doesn't seem to grasp WP:CRYSTAL, so no weight.
6. Nouniquenames is pretty terse here. I'm going to have to assume he's simply supporting the WP:CRYSTAL based component of the nomination.
7. Mtking goes for the WP:NOT argument that the events typically have trouble with: lack of non-routine coverage for the UFC event.
8. Entity of the Void makes an argument with no relevance to the debate.
9. Beansy makes an argument with no relevance to the debate.
10. Kudos to Odie5553. If everyone would argue like that, these debates wouldn't become the kind of clusterfuck that this one is. He does the best job of arguing the keep side of anyone in this debate. I'll consider this one carefully. The flaw in his argument is that he presumes that USA Today represents "diverse sources", so other keep voters are going to have to fill that in by actually finding diverse sources.
11. Enric Naval basically summarizes what "routine coverage" means in this case, and he's got a solid case: since nearly every UFC article is basically an expansion of a fight card template, people need to find coverage that falls out of the fight card arena, or it's "routine coverage".
12. 182.239.235.186 whines. No weight here.
13. TreyGeek makes a new delete argument: since the articles are only fight cards, and the fight card may change, why make the article before the event. Hard to weigh, but he's got a point.
14. 174.3.198.16 finds a new source from USA Today.
15. Evenfiel makes no argument.
16. Errant confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia, so no real weight there. Affirms that he doesn't view the CRYSTAL argument as being convincing. For those that need more explicit summation, remember that arguments that read "It's the biggest shiniest vacuum cleaner ever, and it's got more attachments than any other" don't matter at AFDs. They are irrelevant.
17. SilverSeren confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia. No weight.
18. Courier00 makes no argument relevant to the discussion.
19. JonnyBonesJones confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia. No weight.
20. CasJer argues notability based on sources, but points at sources that are primarily about Carmouche and Rousey.
21. Sue Rangell makes no new argument.
22. Oskar Liljeblad makes a particularly bad argument.
23. Huskerdoo and Live Network Jack ignored as a part of the SPA/Sockpuppet crowd these things attract.
24. Uzma Gamal reiterates the routine coverage argument.
25. AutomaticStrikeout reiterates a bad argument.
26. JonnyBonesJones makes his second irrelevant argument.
27. 198.160.139.1 makes no argument.
28. Claritas argues that it's routine coverage.
29. Willdawg111 reiterates a bad argument.
30. Zimmie08210 whines.
31. 68.44.214.85 again confuses notability within the sport to notability within Wikipedia.
32. Luchuslu makes no argument.

So, in the end, the argument with the greatest policy based weight was that the coverage of the event is routine for this class of sports event. The efforts to refute that were flawed by two basic problems:

1. Most of the sources provided were focusing on Rousey and Carmouche, not on the umbrella UFC 157 event. I note that both fighters already have extensive article that include this material. It's been made clear multiple times that notability is not inherited, be it upwards, downwards, or sideways.
2. Treating USA Today as a completely independent source is problematic, as USA Today publishes MMAjunkie.com.

The efforts to refute WP:NOT#CRYSTAL hinged on finding UFC 157 notable in the first place, so the same problems with evaluating the notability of UFC 157 vs. the notability of Rousey and Carmouche apply.

The interrelationship between USA Today and MMAjunkie.com also weakens all arguments based on diversity of sources.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]