Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

FIN

I am beyond wanting to help form a compromise with SPA's,etc. I am fairly certain there are many more wikipedians that agree, though I only speak for myself. I feel it is time to end this discussion and go back to work on the omnibus.Though they are hesitant to wade in at this point, it is obvious numerous admins feel current notability guidelines are sufficient,we already have the DR that led to the Omnibus.Good ideas about multiple omnibuses can be taken from above and put onto practice. I'd rather spend my time arguing SPA's at AfD and asking for protection of redirects and merges. Following JJB's proposal at RfC on Agent, he can ask that any deleted or redirected articles be userfied. I am not wasting anymore time even responding to SPa's.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"I am beyond wanting to help form a compromise". No surprises there! 76.103.153.126 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed your recent edit. Please refrain from unilaterally blanking pages and redirecting them to the omnibus without prior consensus. Individual pages may or may not meet the criteria for stand alone articles, but you are not the sole arbiter of this. In the future, please post your reasoning on the talk page and build consensus prior to making sweeping changes. Thank you. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for further discussion, see the above and archived pages as well as the RfC on Agent, the previous DR that resulted in the omnibus. the only thing I have to get a conversation on consensus for is AfD.

Until you register and prove to be more than and MMA fanboy SPA, this will be the last time I respond to you.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Now who is the one with the personal attacks? Remember that part about assuming "good faith"? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

These editors like to throw potshots like "fanboys", but if we retaliate, we get banned and reported. Portillo (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Portillo on this point, and would strongly discourage the use of the term "fanboy". If you can't think of a more less derogatory term, consider using the term "MMA fan", at least that way you are not talking down to somebody. WP:CIVIL works both ways, and calling somebody a "fanboy" boils down to name-calling. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Portillo, I don't think that's true. The subject stakeholders still left here haven't done anything to retaliate. "Retaliation" would be AfDing America's Next Top Model for the same kind of "enduring notability" issues, and admins simply auto-close those AfD's and ban anyone bring up this serious issue of trite local dime-a-dozen reality show notability even if it's more valid by the same logic. Agent00f (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Portillo/Kelapstick you are right, I shouldn't use fanboy.I have struck that part of the comment.Please know that though I disagree with you guys about some of this, I have no fundamental issue with MMA fans who are wikipedians. I like MMA myself. I don't necessarily agree that it's derogatory, but it is definitely uncivil in these discussions. I stand by ignoring SPA's at this point. Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing between UFC events and non-UFC events

In a nutshell: The 2 dozen annual UFC events represent the highest level of the sport. Make them inherently notable, as a set. Put our energy into developing them. Blow the rest out of the airlock.

• Examples: UFC 138 (easy keep), MFC 28 (nuke from orbit)

Even if the new guideline proposal is agreed upon, it probably won't have enough force to allow bulk redirects or deletions. The time wasting AfDs and merges will continue, without certain results for each. Plus, it will make swiss cheese of the series, which is pointless for all. The problem will go on and on.

We need a definitive and lasting resolution to this problem: Fully developed UFC event articles with prose get articles. Other MMA event articles don't stand a chance unless particularly notable. They are perfect for omnibuses. I will personally liase with the MMA forum people and invite them to become Wikipedians. Once foes, they can become allies and help develop the UFC articles. There are only a couple of dozen a year, so if all the energy is put into those, they should come out well. A neat and tidy, definitive, long-term solution.

I'm quite keen on getting input from neutral, uninvolved editors. In fact, my position on this whole matter will probably fall in line with their view once I hear what they say. I trust the community very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The distinction is completely unnecessary as long as there's a sane omnibus format and brightline rules to kill frivolous AfDs. I'm not sure why you feel there's a need to compromise on these quite reasonable points. Plus I don't think the MMA community at large (which I'm hardly a "member" of, btw) would appreciate such a sellout as first negotiating step anyway. The politics here are relatively simple: people would only want to voluntarily work on this if they don't feel they're getting screwed by a self-appointed elite who don't have their interests in mind. We all know this, which is what makes the process here shockingly bourgeois for a supposedly egalitarian ruleset. Agent00f (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Could you please be more concise and stick to input on the idea? These massive paragraphs are very disruptive and will deter others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? The first two sentences are the concise answer. It's a bandaid solution with an exceptional case which makes it even less tenable as a matter of policy before committee than doing this right. The only way it might pass is because they dislike you less than they dislike me as a counterparty to "compromise". As I've mentioned before, the problems in this affair are non-trivial, mostly on the political/systemic side. I'm not trying to establish some kind of college literacy test for my comments, there's just no way to say it with smaller words. Again, I'm being quite serious. Agent00f (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

90% of UFC articles probably are above the threshold for coverage. We should judge individual articles themselves, not go by "It's UFC, it's inheretly notable" bright line rule. This is what I think. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This. If an article on an event is just WP:ROUTINE results it should be in the omnibus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Do 90% of UFC articles pass WP:ROUTINE? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, MMANOT has done a good job of reigning in excess articles on organizations and especially on fighters which is a great thing. It's mostly the events where there are some issues. Ravensfire (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All good points, UFC is the highest level of the sport, but we should avoid the inherent notability argument. Articles should contain some independent sources to help overcome the WP:ROUTINE coverage from MMA-related sources. More prose demonstrating notability; less WP:TRIVIA.None but shining hours (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Last call for a brilliant idea

I thought inherent notability was a lesser of evils, but yes, not the best thing.

So, with current guidelines, things are a mess. New guideline proposal, same. UFC events will never be a complete set, even with campaign to improve them. AfDs and merges will continue. No side can totally have it their way. Opposition and fighting will continue. MMA forum community still hates us. Article visitors unsatisfied. Nothing's changed. Does anyone see a clear way forward? This time, I'm really considering walking as I have nothing further to offer. Last chance for a clever solution. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

While it doesn't give the quick win, progressively working on the events (wherever they are) and making runs for the fun aspects of WP (Good Articles,Did You Know, Featured articles) are some of the ways to re-invigorate the communities. Hasteur (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only stumbled into this area chasing BigzMMA. The whole MMA isn't my thing. I prefer to make species articles and such, and stay in the mainspace. I stayed to bring balance to the force as I saw Trey and Mtking running circles around the less-wiki-savvy. Now, there are more eyes on things. By the way, where are those two? They always seem to act with a single mind. Maybe they've both checked into a sanitarium to recuperate from this. I've been flipping through brochures myself. Perhaps I'll bump into them. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, I am watching, and am not in a sanitarium, but I am not going to jump in a refute every point, as there is no chance anything I can say will change the views of the fans, they want an article on every mma event, they won't change that, there seams to be an inexhaustible source of SPA's to help that aim. Mtking ^(edits) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The "act with a single mind" comment is humorous, especially since I'm commenting within minutes of Mtking.  ;) I've too been watching this discussion. My personal feeling is that RfCs are a way of getting input from the wider Wikipedia community and not for the same half-dozen voices to continue debating. As it is, I've stated my opinions on the entire situation multiple times over the last couple of months. Therefore, I really don't have anything new to contribute. So, I've forced myself to stay out of this in hopes that we can get opinions from new people involved with Wikipedia as a whole. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no political solution possible until the core clique members also decide to walk and it's unfortunate for the process they're the only ones who won't relinquish grip on the agenda despite all that time on the cross. The technical solution is frankly trivial in comparison; I've probably spent more time on handling the BS/threats/intimidation than it would've taken to reconstruct all the markup (ie templatize) for all the events AND write up guidelines that make sense while consistent with the prior thought process in WP:sports. The work:bureaucracy ratio in this case is on the order of at least two magnitudes as clearly evidenced by months of lead-up to two trite paragraphs that still make a mockery of domain knowledge.

This isn't a problem which can be solved by considering a couple trite points at time. That's the TLDR of why the current party won't be able to find a lasting solution. ATM it seems the best that can come of this one-sided process is they move on claiming success, then everything resets the hard way with the next AfD war, and maybe those next collaborators can consider the problem less superficially. Agent00f (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming the correctness of the statement about what constitutes the top level of the sport (I lack the knowledge to judge this) , I think this in its original form was a very good proposal. Trying to decide questions of notability in areas with what seems to many of us over-extensive press coverage by rules based on the sourcing is unworkable: the solutions always come down to the question of the details of the coverage--the degrees to which particular sources are sufficiently RSs for notability, or the meaning of "lasting" significance--something we are singularly unable to predict, & in most cases this is entirely a matter of judgment which is interpreted very differently for topics that one favors or disfavors. The devotion to the GNG leads to endless quibbling; the adopting of fixed separation points between notability and non-notability is much simpler to apply and avoids endless numbers of discussions. WHen I came here 5 years ago I thought the GNG very clever:I remember saying at one of the first AfDs I participated in: "Keep. why do wee have the GNG if we're not going to follow it" -- and the argument was accepted. I now realize how foolish an approach this was. "Inherent notability" has gotten a bad name, but deciding notability by the nature of the topic rather than the nature of the coverage makes sense. It's what we in essence do anyway, though we use in elaborate disputes over detailed wording to pretend otherwise.

I'm arguing from principle. I have personally no interest whatsoever in any of the articles, and I deplore the attempt at what amounts to ballot box stuffing. But AfDs as we use them are inherently susceptible to this, and AfDs are decided on their merits only if almost nobody actually cares about the article on way or another. And it can not be otherwise, because Notability is a guideline which specifically even more than most guideline permits making exceptions, and we have no way to judge whether to make an exception except consensus. The combination of IAR and open editing can do anything. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• DGG, There's a general summary/proposal by JBB at the end of this q&a. IMO it's well worth reading. Frankly I think it's strange that this circus was run by self-proclaimed wiki "experts" for so many months, yet we're only learning about this now. Agent00f (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ppt1973 claims of deletion

I guess since the discussions here are leading nowhere, TPTB have decided to start the outright deletion of pages past, present and scheduled. Ppt1973 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for refactoring your comment, but we're trying to keep discussions on track. Can you please give some examples? Your post as it currently stands seems to stir the drama up instead of trying to explain the problem. Hasteur (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC 27 for one. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also UFC 148, UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall, UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida, UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, 27 looks like that was done by an editor who's totally uninvolved with all of this. It's at DRV but quickly heading to endorse. The other four articles are in the omnibus but there really should be a redirect article for each of them directing to the omnibus. If I type in UFC 148, I should go directly to that section of the omnibus, not go to the search page where it suggests that article. I'll work on creating those missing redirects. Ravensfire (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: UFC27. This isn't an isolated action, "totally uninvolved" with all of this. Note how the usual suspects Newmanoconnor, Mtking and Hasteur are all involved in both the deletion discussion and deletion review discussion arguing in favor of deletion. And this time around they don't even bother to set up an omnibus page, but are just outright deleting it form Wikipedia. Ppt1973's claims are spot on. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Look who nominated it - I don't think I've seen them post in this discussion. You're trying to read way more into this than there is. The AFD system is setup to categorize articles so folks who can spot articles in areas they're familiar with an comment. When Mtking and Hasteur have nominated an event, they've already merged it to the omnibus because they don't want to lose the information. The 27 text is available, so someone could start the 2000 in UFC events and merge the contents there before the DRV closes. UPDATE: The 2012 event articles listed have been recreated as redirects. Up to the MMA folks to create the 2000 omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

75 IP, can we please refrain from singling out editors and actions and instead focus on improving the articles? Your commentary is not helpful to improving the articles in question, nor is your commentary unfamiliar. Please consider registering/logging in to edit as your commentary is strikingly similar to others and we would hate for you to fall on the wrong side of certain policies here. Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your allegations. It sounds like you're making a veiled allegation of me being a sockpuppet combined with a veiled threat of banning/blocking me. Please phrase your words carefully in the future. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe people are actively deleting articles and information that is obviously of no concern to them. What happened to free access to the sum of all human knowledge? I contribute and donate to wikipedia regularly but these actions of the few imposing their uncompromising views of what wikipedia should be make me reconsider my contributions and donations to this entire project (not just MMA). It's such a shame to see such a great body of work get destroyed by a few people who think they know what's best for everyone. Why not do something productive with your own time instead of destroying what others have worked hard on and doesn't even affect you? Sad. 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not "free access to the sum of all human knowledge". Please review the 5 Pillars to understand better. Hasteur (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And that being said, your paragraph above is your very first edit. What contributions to Wikipedia do you claim to have made, and under what username? Ravenswing 21:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's this IPs first edit. 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. But that's not an answer to the question. Ravenswing 23:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Given how many open threats/intimidation and vindictive AN's have been launched against me (very much doubt the same occurs for someone on the right side of the issue), do you feel that revealing and opening his other contributions to the same would be a smart idea? Agent00f (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"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." -Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy is nice and all, but there's a nice essay called Argumentum ad Jimbonem whose nutshell is that Jimmy founded Wikipedia, but he has given power to the community to determine what the direction for the project is. The 5 Pillars are the community core. Every other policy/guideline/essay flows from that fount of power. As such the sum of all human knowledge is at odds with the Encyclopedia pillar. Don't like the idea? Feel free to open a discussion there to see about getting the pillar changed. Hasteur (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the way this "discussion" has gone, I'd rather not waste my time. 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur: "can we please refrain from singling out editors and actions and instead focus on improving the articles?". Herein lies the problem with the kind of "logic" propagated by the AfD crusaders: they start an asymmetric war against a whole subject, wreck havoc on existing content at almost no cost to themselves, and then encourage people to work on articles they've been actively trying to remove via exploitable ambiguities in the guidelines. If this kind of behavior exemplifies the WP:RULES they drop at a whim, then there needs to be a serious examination of what wiki will tolerate in systemic policy abuse. Agent00f (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So you don't feel bound by the rules? Jumping in to conversations you aren't involved in, calling out perceived infractions, not improving the content of wikipedia one bit. Great to see double standard. If anything, the examination of what the wiki will tolerate has already commenced Hasteur (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm bound by the spirit of the rules and a sense of basic humanistic ethics, both of which are violated in abundance on this topic. While I generally don't bother to log in for edits on technical pages (and in fact avoid it now to deny possible vindictive AfDs), it's at least apparent I haven't made things significantly worse for wiki users. Agent00f (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

He might not be improving the content of Wikipedia, but at least he's not actively trying to make it worse. Which is something that can't be said about everyone here in this discussion. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was UFC 27 deleted? What a disruptive mess. Portillo (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think the deletion discussion would answer your question and doesn't really appear to be that much of "disruptive mess". --TreyGeek (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So UFC 27 wasnt notable. What a surprise. Portillo (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've just discovered this discussion, and am quite surprised to see learn I'm part of an anti-MMA cabal. Usually I edit in other controversial areas and have already been outed as part of a neonazi cabal, a terrorist cabal, a skeptic cabal, a Big Pharma cabal &c but this new membership is quite a surprise as I have no interest whatsoever in MMA; I just read a random article, saw it failed to meet our standards, and decided to AfD it; the community agreed, so it got deleted. When do I get my cheque from The Powers That Be? bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Deletion of UFC 27 is clearly an integral part of a larger on-going discussion. Note that some editors who stayed entered the fray for the same reason you did: because they wanted one event gone and refuse to believe that it's part of a greater whole. Apparently we just found out after many many months (on another related RfC) that this isn't the first time this problem has been solved on wiki. Agent00f (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to link us to that RfC? Hasteur (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like UFC 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 28 is next on the anti-MMA hitlist. Portillo (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Portillo, for the love of WP:JIMBO, stop stirring the drama pot. WP:TAGGING is a appropriate process for raising concerns about an article. I suspect Mtking tagged those articles in response to WT:MMA#Get the Lead out, where I suggested that we conduct a drive to evaluate these articles and work on getting them up to a level where they can remain in Wikipedia. Please assume good faith on the part of all other editors as I would assume that you would want of yourself. If you want to exempt yourself from assumptions of good faith on your actions, we can do that for you. Hasteur (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Honest question regarding notability

Honest question to TreyGeek, Hasteur, Dennis Brown, Newmanoconnor, Mtking and others arguing against individual pages. Is UFC 94 an example of an event that meets requirements for a stand alone article, or not? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Both UFC 94 and UFC 140, in my opinion, meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Both contains prose that explains the event and cite sources outside of MMA media. FYI, I have never argued against individual pages as a blanket statement. I have argued against individual event articles that contain little to no prose (and are simply a reporting of results or anticipated fights) and are lacking in citing sources, particularly mainstream sources. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I know you haven't argued that no UFC event should have their own page. I just wanted some clarification of all the people in favor of the omnibus page. Some of the comments made (not by you, though) on this talk page made it seem like not a single UFC event meets the criteria and none should have their own page. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see one big reason why that event is notable, the Greasing controversy. That in itself promotes the singular event to the level of a stand alone. Hasteur (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How do you feel about UFC 140? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This one I'm not so sure about. Reading the prose, I'm noticing 2 concerns. The first is that we have the "results" listed in both prose form and generic results section. The second is that I don't understand what importance is in the Bonus Awards and Entrance Music sections.

The fact that these 2 sections are sourced by a single entry each is concerning to me. In addition I question the Reliable source designation of MMA Entrances. I can't find any editorial oversight on the site so I think that it would serve the community best if a discussion was opened at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if the site qualifies as a reliable source and to start a calm discussion at the MMA Project's discussion page regarding policy based reasoning for the inclusion of the entrance songs in event articles.

Beyond that the coverage looks more like the standard "He's in, He withdrew, Results" coverage. The only thing that potentially raises the bar is the jumping of the gun announcement of one of the fights. I'd probably say keep it as is, but it's significantly lower on the level of notability in my mind.

Sorry this response rambled all over the place, I'm just trying to give you a full list of what I see for the article. Hasteur (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur, I think it's a little long, but it at least try's to tell a story. for UFC 140, I'm just not sure, I'd have to retread it and research. I also am not against individual articles that meet minimum standards.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also give your input in UFC 140, like you mentioned? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, how do you feel about UFC 94 and 140? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's nice to see a civil MMA discussion. I haven't ventured onto this page in a while, but I would like to comment on the original question. I believe UFC 94 qualifies for a standalone article because it has prose, a controversy that caused a rule change, and a championship fight. UFC 140 makes a much weaker case. Most of the prose is simply a rehash of the fight (i.e., routine sports reporting) with no ususual incidents. I believe the championship fight does boost it's claim to notability, however. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As the author of the vast majority of the prose on UFC 140 I agree that much of the prose is a rehash of the fights; though there was an attempting at having a good background section that discusses more than injuries. I wasn't sure how to write the two "significant" aspects (IMO) of the event. That would be the championship fight between Machida and Jones and the other would be the first ever (technical) submission of Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira (which resulted in a broken arm for Nogueira). The greasing controversy at UFC 94 is easy to write about in depth with its own section as it changed how fighters enter the cage at MMA events (at least for the Zuffa promotions). I'd be interested to hear suggestions, from anyone and everyone, on writing up prose about significant, individual fights at an event (such as championship bouts or first ever stoppages of notable fighters). The Subseqent Events section of UFC 140 could also be expanded/updated. I was getting pretty tired of working on the article at that point. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• If you of all people working on this for a week can't even assure it passes AfD, what do you think are the chances for anything else to ever split off? I mean, why bother? Agent00f (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may, just because there's effort put into an article doesn't mean that it's actually viable to live as a stand alone. To use a very non-sequitor, I've been working (off and on) for months to get a song that I consider extremely important ready for main space. The problem is that there are very few digital sources that have text that could be introduced as citable. Doesn't mean I give up, it just means I need to expand my horizons to printed media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs)

Agent00f, I think if UFC 140 were taken to AfD today, I would put money on it leaning towards keep. (But I wrote most of the prose in it, so I could be bias.) What suggestions would you have for the question I asked. To rephrase it, how can prose be written to highlight significant fights at a particular event? Looking at UFC 140 again, I suppose one answer would be to improve the lead to have a greater emphasis on the significant fights, but other suggestions are welcome. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your hard work, TreyGeek, and even the constructive debate by Hasteur and others. Sadly, the notable person missing here is Mtking, who, based on prior comments, seemed to indicate that no UFC event would be worthy of it's own article. I believe this is what Agent is hinting at. No matter what we do, he (or others) might still push for AfDs regardless of what we do. I'd really love to hear his opinion on UFC 140 and UFC 94, but I fear he's upset with me over the UFC_on_FX:_Alves_vs._Kampmann discussion and won't answer me. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"how can prose be written to highlight significant fights at a particular event". You can get an answer of what I would like to see if I'm reader such an article: fighter strategy as they discuss them before the fight, what was implemented in the contest, and their thoughts on it afterward. The gamesmanship is interesting, and the more honest assessment after the fight is interesting. It all ties into the mental aspect of the sport which is in many ways more important than the immediate physical. However, this isn't about what I want to see, but what other regular contributors can add to satisfy the AfD enthusiasts. One important aspect of why the topic is so poisonous is that it envisions a future of nothing but a political show of how to game arbitrary rules, rather than anything to do with the topic at hand.

One important thing Hasteur & allies should keep in mind is that for most of wikipedia's road to success, it was essentially an incubator for domain experts to provide meaningful material. The governing technicalities came about to accommodate both the spread of the internet to the masses and their relation to maturing articles. The massive irony is that the rules as they're interpreted here would've essentially blocked wiki from ever being allowed to grow. Agent00f (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of female MMA fighters

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bec Hyatt about the notability of female MMA fighters. I believe they should be held to the same standards as men (3 fights or a title fight for a top tier organization), but others disagree. I would appreciate any comments, whether or not they agree with me, from experienced MMA editors--both here and at the aforementioned AfD discussion. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am entirely in agreement with you; either they have to fight for a recognized top tier organization, or they have to meet the GNG ... and I discount MMA-only websites as far as establishing notability. What other possible standard could there be? Ravenswing 01:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I wanted to stay out of this titanic mess, but allow me to chime in on female MMA fighters: what defines a "top tier" organization is really open to debate as male fighters are able to get through on very loose guidelines. With the all-femle Invicta FC's recent streaming event getting more unique viewers than some Bellator or Strikeforce events I would place them in that same top-tier category for the purposes of notability. Also I think exemptions for women who contributed to the development of women's MMA like Erin Toughill, Miku Matsumoto, or Yuki Tsuji should also be included. Maybe if they've been ranked #1 in their weight class under the Unified Women's MMA ranking [[1]] or something that would also be acceptable? Not every competitive weight class has had a true world title anyway. So how about fulfilling any one of the following criteria: two fights in a "major" organization, a title fight in a major organization, a Bellator tournament fight (not including "qualifiers"), a #1 ranking, a title belt in a first or second tier organization (including Jewels, Pancrase, or Valkyrie), or some provable significance to the development of WMMA's popularity (I think each of the three above examples I gave all qualify under different criteria though). If they have accomplishments that make them noteworthy, that would also be important (Randi Miller or Sara McMann's Olympic wrestling, Holly Holms multiple world titles in boxing, Kyra Gracie's BJJ career, Erin Toughill's boxing, etc.)
  • That being said Bec Hyatt falls incredibly short of worthiness here so I have no problem with her article being deleted. Should she become a notable female MMA fighter it can always be re-created.
  • Beyond that, this is really the wrong place to be holding this discussion, as this place is a big enough mess as it is. Beansy (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • A "provable impact" is a very subjective thing. Shall we simply let the GNG handle that? Ravenswing 05:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • After reconsidering it, all of the women I had in mind would qualify under the other criteria I suggested or under separate sporting accomplishments anyway, so the criteria suggestion of "provable impact" is withdrawn. However, I would maintain that this is the wrong page to discuss this. Beansy (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have thought the MMA notability page was exactly the right place to discuss MMA notability, regardless of gender (although I guess it could have been posted at WT:MMA). I do appreciate the comments. Papaursa (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thought: Split by Quarters

There was a suggestion at Talk:2012 in UFC events of ways to split the article so that the UFC main list for the year doesn't get significantly unwieldly to read/edit. The suggestion was to instead of breaking down the UFC article by event type, to break it down by quarters. Any reasoned thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What if there is a string of 4 months where there are no "notable" fights/events by the previous standards? Why is it notable enough to be split into 4 sections instead of just splitting it up by event? Nascar has a 2012 in Nascar page with links to every single event like 2012_Kobalt_Tools_400 & there is also this 2012_ATP_World_Tour with individual pages for each event on the tour (some weekends there are three or four events). These pages are just as "routine coverage" as any MMA event and one could easily argue are less notable than the 24 or so UFC events per year. If the policy is going to be strictly enforced for the UFC, it should also be done in various other places. Once that happens, it'll be easier to handle seeing all of these UFC pages get deleted. Or policy will change to take into account this widespread coverage issue.--192.217.84.1 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:OTHERSTUFFNewmanoconnor (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Basically on wiki, any precedent, even if it's widely documented common practice is OTHERSTUFF if it happens to be inconvenient. Everything must adhere to GNG, unless it's stuff someone personally likes, in which case calling is trivially dismissed by WP:POINTy. It's like a deletion bureaucrat's circular dream. Agent00f (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agent, we'd gladly accept precedent if there were a reasonable linkage. For example, if UFC launches a new series of events The Ultimate Punishment, that takes the MMA rules and relaxes the rules on what moves are legal, there'd be precedent that The Ultimate Punishment 5: I don't want to go to physical therapy is likely to be notable. It can start out as a minor section/stub prior to knowing more information about it, but if one of the fighters pulled the other fighter's eye out, that'd be significantly notable. Hrm... must copyright this ideaHasteur (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have better things to do than to become a WikiLawyer. Keep it all or delete it all. Don't make terrible articles that do not satisfy the community that uses them and in the same light doesn't satisfy the deletionists urge to uphold WikiPolicy. If you can justify quarterly articles, you can easily justify singular event articles. You routinely make the point that MLB and NFL weeks are not covered on Wiki and therefore, the UFC shouldn't be either. My main point was that there are in fact sports that do have weekly coverage despite the policy that you hold so dear.--192.217.84.1 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability, Wikipedia:WikiProject_NASCAR/Standards, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One#Types_of_articles. There is precedent to sporting events being covered on wikipedia much more routinely than the current UFC coverage. Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Individual_games_or_series does not mention anything in regards to events like the ones that I'm talking about (which it should) and there is quite a big difference between individual events (games) and large scale events like WTA Tennis, Nascar, F1 Formula racing and UFC events. --192.217.84.1 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work IP 192.Ppt1973 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

All of those have one primary aspect, they're above and beyond the GNG guideline. All we're asking here is that the MMA articles come up to the minimum of GNG and give specific examples of how that is done. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There's an issue with the "notability" of the earlier UFCs like the recently deleted UFC 27 in that each of these events were not covered by mass media because the sport was in it's infancy. Today there isn't nearly as much of an issue with that. Also, I'm honestly interested in knowing how those groups came up to the consensus that their articles passed the GNG guideline but this fails. How can this be fixed? What "loophole" were they able to get through to come to that consensus and that we're completely missing here?--192.217.84.1 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Hasteur, the examples he gave do NOT meet WP:GNG (nor do the other examples I listed above which you conveniently ignored). 2012_Kobalt_Tools_400 and 2012_ATP_World_Tour are nothing more than a list of results and statistics referenced by sites that cover these sports.

The main issue that I'm starting to see as this discussion develops is blatant inconsistency in policy enforcement. This appears to be a widespread problem across all of wikipedia and the articles which are subject to policy enforcement seem to be determined by WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So 24.70 IP you are also the 192.127.84 address? The problem is that policies are enforced inconsistently on wikipedia, but for the time being we're looking at MMA articles, not Racing or tennis articles. Eventually this "Improve all articles in topic space XYZZY" will come around to other sports. It's always easy to slop up a failure of an article. The challenge comes when you start improving the article to meet the minimums required for Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the accusation that I am posting as two different people. Why are you always so confrontational in your responses? The 192 address is listed as an IP from an educational institution in illinois. 24.70.78.42 is a canadian IP issued by shaw cable. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We're different people. I'm a student who's been following this whole ordeal for over a month now. Finals just ended so I finally have time to become active on Wikipedia.

I accused both of you of nothing, I was asking a question. That both of you jump up and post within a few seconds of each other in the same hostile tone does make behavioral suggestions to me. In fact educational institution have been a hive of proxy/exploited machines for a very long time. I'll strike my original question, but my response still stands Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please consider the possibility that people outside this insular environment who use some basic reasoning might come to the same conclusions about this situation. Consistent clarity was kind of why logic was invented in the first place. Agent00f (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

These groups of people who came together to write the guidelines for those sports were able to read the same rules that you've read and come to a consensus that their particular sports' events should be covered. There's a great deal of ambiguity in the way that they've written Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Individual_games_or_series. There is only mention of individual games but large events that make up an entire sport like the UFC, Tennis, Nascar, F1 and others are not mentioned. Those other sports came to that consensus with the same rules that we have. I'm thinking that there's a giant hole in the SPORTSEVENT page that needs clarifying and I wouldn't have the first idea on how to get that done.--192.217.84.1 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just got around to reading Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Individual_games_or_series (thanks IP 192). It says: "Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league ". Can we infer from this that events with championship fights (who determine the champion of a top league) are inherently notable? If not, why not? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that no. The referenced guideline/policy (from my reading) asserts that the entire game is the notability because of the championship. If we were to apply the same logic, the bout for the championship would be the notable portion (not the rest of the fights on the card). However I think having a championship fight raises the level of notability, but not enough to warrant a stand alone. If there was some combination of other notability granting events coupled with the championship, then yes. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, are you saying that an article for an individual championship fight would be inherently notable, but the event that fight was a part of was not? So if we were to create a separate article for every single championship fight, they would pass all notability requirements? Please let me know if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's great you've come about to distinguish contests on a card. Please try to recall this next time we talk about an event as a collection of contests not unlike a [short] season. Though it might be best discussion if participants all learned a bit about how the sport works beforehand instead of relying on these little epiphanies throughout. Then it would be much more clear why a contiguous sequence of events is much more preferable than a slapdash calender year page with arbitrary spinoff entries. Agent00f (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the policy doesn't state that the event is only notable in combination with other "notability granting events". It states that the event is inherently notable if it determines the champion of a top league. I think we can all agree that the UFC is a top league.

It's these type of comments that lead people to believe that mixed martial arts is being held to a higher standard than other articles. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't believe that "higher standards" exist as a matter of tautology via the axioms WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINTy. Every little thing, even obviously cohesive spinouts from a list must be held to WP:GNG (per interpretation of admin Dennis Brown) or it's a valid target for AfD enthusiasts. That it hasn't happened for thousands of lists across wiki is just pure coincidence (but they might be next, who knows). Agent00f (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

←Back to the original question posted, as the discussion seems to have gone off on a tangent, I would suggest that splitting it by quarters would be a mess, the article size would not be consistent, and the title selection would be a nightmare (i.e. January - March 2012 in UFC events or something similar). I will bring up what was suggested before, doing something like UFC 1-10, UFC 10-20, etc. This would give a reasonable consistent size, because the early years of UFC are light in events, while the later years are heavier (i.e. 1993 in UFC events would only have UFC 1, and 1994 in UFC events would only have 2, 3, & 4), and by the time you got to today, well you would have the massive article we are currently seeing. As I was tarred and feathered for the last time I brought it up, the 10 events per article is completely arbitrary, I selected it because it a nice round number, it could easily be 5, 15, 20, 17, I don't really care, I just think having the same number of events per article would give a nice consistent feel to them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem that I have with your suggestion is that it doesn't take into account non-numbered UFC events. And it would ruin the continuity if we have a seperate article for that. A better suggestion would be just being flexible. Obviously, UFC in 1993 doesn't make any sense. So maybe it would be 1994-1996 in UFC Events, and Q1 2012 in UFC Events. The duration we use should be based on the overall length of the article and we split/merge based on that. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes the FX and FUEL TV issues are ones that I considered problematic for this format, and I don't know the best way to handle those ones. Maybe the FX and the like should be split into years, I honestly don't know (and don't really care to debate that issue here), my only concern was the numbered UFC events, because they appear to be the most notable, and they are the most alike, so grouping them together makes sense to me. I agree that the grouping should be based on page size and not just by one year alone, and the idea of grouping by number gives a standard so there is no discussion or interpretation required as to when an article gets "too long", and gives a consistent naming convention, rather than one page being named by a year range, and one by a quarter of a year. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on being consistent, but there already are differences in length per event. The 10 events in one page might result in a much larger article than a different set of 10 events. Just notice the difference in length between UFC 2 and UFC 25, let alone UFC 140. So using a fixed number of events to group would be consistent in the number of events, but would still produce widely varying sizes of articles. I propose we resolve this on a case by case basis. Combine years when individual year pages are too short (1993), split years when they are too long (2012). Maybe we can come up with an appropriate size/length? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This was already rejected by the guy who pushed for the ominibus (Dennis), and his reasons were clearly stated in the RfC I pointed you to. I'm sorry he didn't have the heart to tell you directly when you proposed this. Agent00f (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis doesn't have the power to unilaterally reject a suggestion, and I don't know where you got the idea that he does, and I don't know what you mean by "he didn't have the heart to tell you directly when you proposed this" means, and I am not going to go looking through that wall of text, for a single editor's rejection to a proposal, that may or may not be present (and given your habit of twisting people's words, and misrepresenting what they say, I am going to guess that it is not going to be there). I was talking to Hasteur who had suggested a way to organize the articles, a way that I disagreed with. Are you aware that you are not required to respond to every comment that is made on this page?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis made the first substantive post about how he feels about the omnibus in that RfC. Search for "This is one reason I have been against grouping MMA by simple numbers, like 10 events, and instead by year, season, network, as there is no foundation to why particular groups of 10 are notable as a group". Again, I'm sorry you had to hear it from me. Agent00f (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. No need to apologise for having to be the one to bring it up. I agree there is no foundation for using that as a way to organise the articles, other than it makes sense (to me at least) to do it that way because UFC events are not seasonal, and grouping them by year or by quarter is as arbitrary as grouping them in sets of ten or twenty. Having said that Dennis Brown not liking that arrangement holds no more weight than me, you, Hasteur, Mtking, Trey Geek, or anyone else being for or against it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a horrible interpretation of the notability guideline. Now the grouping itself is subject to notability requirements? So 2012 in UFC events is only notable because 2012 is notable, and would cease to be notable if we change the name to UFC 142 to 154? This is sophistry of the highest order. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to MMA on wikipedia, where common sense or even common wiki practice comes to die. Agent00f (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not even that. It doesn't just violate common sense, this goes well beyond that. It's arguing for the sake of arguing. It is nothing but pure sophistry to claim that UFC 35 - 40 would be less notable than 2002 in UFC events even if it covered the same subject by virtue of 2002 being notable itself, and 35 - 40 just being numbers. Such reasoning is something that would score you points in your debate club, but should be rejected out of hand in any real discussion. Assuming good faith, I suspect Dennis Brown hasn't thought through what he said, and I don't think his argument is something we should consider seriously. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I know I'm going to be accused of WP:OTHERSTUFF but check List_of_Pokémon_(599–648). They used to have individual articles for every Pokemon. Some people claimed this violates WP policies, so they worked on an omnibus page listing a number of different Pokemon on the same page (sound familiar?). They group them by number and number alone. But of course, other parts of Wikipedia have no bearing on this MMA debate. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you refer to is the Pokemon test. Thank you for helping me remember that wonderful example. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the Pokemon test, since that was about individual Pokemon having articles which hasn't been the case in a while. Maybe this can be called the Pokemon test 2.0, comparing an omnibus article to a Pokemon omnibus article. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

First it was yearly articles, now quarters. Whats next, monthly and fortnightly articles? Portillo (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to shift the goalposts, I'm trying to bring suggestions to the table to see if there's a better solution. Hasteur (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Another honest question regarding notability

There are many american tv series on wikipedia which have a main article, a separate 'list of characters' article, another 'list of episodes' article and then separate articles for each individual episode which contain little more than a plot summary. These articles are often created well before the episode has aired and the references listed are generally entertainment news sites. Are individual episodes of tv series really considered more notable by wikipedia standards than live events at the highest level of an increasingly popular international sport viewed by millions around the world? I don't have a problem with individual articles for tv episodes but I wonder why they are considered inherently notable whereas mixed martial arts events are not.

Also, I don't think it's fair to disregard or ignore comments posted by IPs even if (or maybe especially if) they only have a single edit. Consider how often dynamic IPs can change and that they may be regular contributors even if it's only every few weeks. Also consider that even if they did only make their first edit to discuss this topic, they are more than likely already WP:READERS. How are we to greet them by ignoring their comments and labelling them 'fanboy SPAs'? I realize that some of the comments posted by IPs are too emotional and generally unhelpful, however, there are also thoughtful and constructive points which have been ignored both here and on the talk page of '2012 in UFC events'. Please remember that IPs are WP:HUMAN too and their opinions are just as important as those of registered users. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists of characters and lists of episodes are well sourced and referenced, so it makes sense for those spin outs (and even stand alones) when there is content to support it. If you look at the prose for those it's well written and not effectively a copy-paste from whatever source they got it from.

The reason why most experienced editors ignore IPs is for the exact reason you give. Conceivably there could be 16.7 million different IPs that could edit and have different histories. If every IP address dropped by to make a comment, we'd never have any forward progress. All we'd have is a chat room discussing the problem, no improvement on articles. Wikipedia consensus, for the most part, is decided by WP:EDITORS. People who have sat down, registered, read the policies involved, and put some investment into understanding what Wikipedia is about. People who don't register or register and use a "discussion points crib sheet" are easy to spot because they make the same argument repeatedly and without understanding the reasons behind the argument. Hasteur (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Further, if IP addresses want to be taken seriously, they should register and contribute to the collection of knowledge that we have. As long as they don't bang up against certain policies and behave themselves as the 24 IP suggests, we should never have any problems. Hasteur (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. IPs should NOT have to register in order to be taken seriously. That goes against the entire philosophy of wikipedia and the founding principles of all wikimedia projects. Consensus is not formed by an elite group of editors but by the opinions of each and every user, registered or not. WP:HUMAN clearly states that the opinions of IPs are just as important for reaching consensus as those of registered users. Also remember that all of wikipedia should be tailored towards WP:READERS.

I do appreciate your comments but you did not address my question regarding the notability of individual tv episode articles which are sourced only by entertainment news sites and created before the episode has aired. Not just for certain episodes but for each and every episode as the season progresses with each article featuring little more than a plot summary. I'm sure you'd find the fans of those series just as defensive if their projects were challenged by notability policies. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the ideal world IP editors are fully educated and contribute to discussions constructively, not throwing tantrums and belaboring discussions. In this article space there are many IP editors that jump up and down and not helping the conversation one bit. Because experienced editors have seen the same behavior repeatedly, we exercise the discretion to ignore these editors.

Your question was answered, you just didn't like the answer. Take a look at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4) for an example. 90% of the episodes don't warrant a spin out stand alone, however we still cover them in the list and the occasional spin out article. Hasteur (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, my question was not answered. As I said, I was referring to shows with an article for each and every episode such as List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, List of Desperate Housewives episodes, List of Seinfeld episodes, List of Sopranos episodes, List of Game of Thrones episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes and many others as well. I don't have a problem with each episode having its own article but if they are all really considered notable by wikipedia standards, then live mixed martial arts events certainly should be as well. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And you know why they have individual episode articles? Because they're well written, sourced, and use outside of the typical coverage sources to demonstrate the notability, something that the MMA articles have failed to do. If you look at the evolution of how those articles developed, you'd see that in 90% of the cases it starts as a blurb in the listing page, then once the show has aired, the blurb gets expanded untill there's reasonable viability of the new episode by itself. That's the standard process for a WP:SPINOUT style article. That's what has been argued for months now. Your comment "If they are all..., then MMA events should as well" is covered quite explicitly by Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that's the same procedure that's happening with the MMA event articles. They start as a blurb on the listing page, then once aired, the blurb gets expanded. Many of the individual episode articles are not properly sourced and some do not even list references. Many of them are simply a synopsis of the plot. For examples see New Leads: the article contains a synopsis and is referenced by a tv news site. Where Do I Belong: once again, this article from a different series only contains an excessively detailed synopsis and is referenced by the same tv news site. The Prince of Winterfell: this episode has not aired yet and the article contains no references. I chose a few random episodes from different series to use as examples, however, you can find hundreds of other articles like this and they seem to go unchallenged. How are these articles considered to have inherent enduring notability? 24.70.78.42 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at the new leads, I see that it started out quite miserably approximately a month before airing. Once the episode aired, there was significant improvement. The MMA event articles are being started multiple months in advance of the show, therefore the comparisons you bring ring false. I'm not going to respond any further as you just don't get the point (or are deliberately being obtuse). Hasteur (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, New Leads improved significantly once it aired. However, even now, more than two years later, the article is nothing more than a plot synopsis referenced only by a tv news site. Once again, how is this article (and the hundreds of others like it) considered to have inherent enduring notability? 24.70.78.42 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the essay that you linked to in an attempt to discredit my points, WP:OSE, seems to actually support the argument I am making: "Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing."

"In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

If you don't agree that WP:OSE supports my argument, then please explain how articles like New Leads (and the hundreds of others like it) are considered to have inherent enduring notability whereas live events at the highest level of mixed martial arts are not. 24.70.78.42 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OSE does not support your position. The nutshell is designed for a high level summary. The actual meat of the essay is much more revealing. Specifically Wikipedia:OSE#Creation of Articles gives the reading "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia. ... Be wary of this logic, though, across topics of differing similarities. The same is not necessarily applicable to vastly different core topics or to every aspect of a topic." Comparing MMA events to episodes of TV series is not a valid linkage. This is seriously my last posting to you on this topic. Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

TV shows (esp reality TV) demonstrate remarkable similarity to UFC events. Both contain individual narratives of "what happened", which are continued through the narrative (eg. contender to title contest). Both are mostly only meaningful to those interested in the show and aren't "inherently notable". In fact, a reality show based on the sport is difficult to distinguish from the sport itself (ie. TUF). The text clearly says be wary, which is why we resort to reason and logic instead of assuming it, instead of a thoughtless blanket ban. Agent00f (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 24, your argument does not support keeping UFC articles based on the New Leads example, it supports deleting New Leads because individual TV shows are not inherently notable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, kelapstick. I'm glad you made this point and while I don't disagree with you, I think that in order to be relevant, wikipedia's policies must be consistent across all topics. Would you also agree with the deletion of the other examples I gave (Where Do I Belong and The Prince of Winterfell)?

Personally, I think that wikipedia should include articles for individual episodes of tv shows as well as individual mixed martial arts events as I believe that it has evolved well beyond the scope of a traditional encyclopaedia and does not (and should not) have a limit to the information it can store. However, regardless of my personal beliefs, in order to adhere to current notability guidelines with consistency, both of these types of articles should be removed.

It has been noted previously that mixed martial arts should not be given special exemptions regarding notability. I agree with this. Why then, are television shows being granted these exemptions? Why has New Leads (and many other episodes) not been nominated for deletion? Why is The Prince of Winterfell allowed to exist before the episode has aired? Creating an article for a tv episode that has not aired seems to assume inherent notability of the episode. If the far majority of these episodes are not notable (and certainly not before they even air) why are there so many examples of tv shows with an article for each episode? Why aren't they being held to the same standards?

Hasteur, I believe that comparing a televised mixed martial arts event to an episode of a television series is a very valid linkage as they are both shows that air on television. How can you argue that the notability of one show on tv is not comparable to the notability of another? 24.70.78.42 (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Without going through the effort of WP:BEFORE, and looking for sources, I would say yes in their current form those two examples should be deleted and redirected to the article on the season. Having said that, the reason that those articles exist is not because they are "permitted" to stay by some arbitrary criteria that all TV shows should have articles, it is because Wikipedia has 6,910,484 and about 100,000 active users. MMA is not under attack while others are protected, this RFC could be happening at any topic with this issue, [[WWE], The Office (U.S. TV series), Desperate Housewives, etc. It just happens to be happening here now. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed. On the one hand I like individual episode articles personally (in fact I read the Doctor Who ones regularly), but if the articles you listed came up for deletion at AfD, I would say delete, because my opinion on if something is useful is irrelevant. Usefulness is not a valid criteria for keeping an article. Having said that, look at The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) for an example of a good article about an individual episode.

I know that some editors have done what I referred to as "retaliatory" AfDs on other topics, and those get speedy kept because the nominations are in bad faith, but if the nominations were actually done with good policy backed statements, rather than veiled "I don't think this is notable" nominations, the articles may have ended up been deleted.

Once this RFC completes, maybe you will see it spreading. There was a discussion on ANI about "walled garden" notability criteria for pages that fall within a WikiProject, and maybe that is going to be the next step, clamping down on WikiProjects that lower the bar to keep stand alone articles. Or maybe it will not. We are all volunteers, and we are free to edit where we like, with the enthusiasm that we wish to, so it is inappropriate for people to say "these guys are picking on the MMA articles when they should be picking on America's Next Top Model", or "if you nominate this you should nominate that".

My comparison of MMA to other sports was akin to an event being like a week in the National Football League (with the matches being the games of the week), it happens at predicable intervals, there is a competition between groups of people, and everyone moves on to the next regularly scheduled event. I think that is a better analogy than a baseball season, but that's just me. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT from this page and this rfc, consistency in policy enforcement matters, unless doing so would benefit MMA visibility on wiki in which case it's WP:OTHERSTUFF. I hope that helps. Agent00f (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct sort of, consistency in policy enforcement is a good thing, although I don't understand what you mean by "consistency in policy enforcement matters". If individual television episodes were nominated in good faith for deletion, they would be held to the same standard that MMA articles are, the issue is nobody has nominated those articles yet. At the discussion any keep votes that used the rationale "but this TV show has articles" would be treated as WP:OTHERSTUFF votes. You are incorrect in stating that the MMA articles are being held to a higher standard.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

−

"nobody has nominated those articles yet". That's not true. At the last ANI, it was reported that some folks did and the AfD was immediately rejected for being POINTy.

"You are incorrect in stating that the MMA articles are being held to a higher standard". No, it's entirely correct. Just read proposal 1 in the rfc just linked where the same predictable editors reject a commonly used listing process for UFC events for no stated reason. Agent00f (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read the ANI discussion fully, or my statement above fully, or WP:SPEEDYKEEP fully, or my comments to Glock17gen4 after I closed the WWE nominations at all. The nominations were made in bad faith and were being used as a point of disruption (i.e. retaliation for the MMA nominations, as the nominator had stated on another user's talk page). Had I personally gone and nominated the articles for deletion, they would not have been speedy closed, because I would not have been doing it in retaliation, I would have been doing it in good faith. If they would have been deleted or not, I don't know, because a proper discussion didn't take place.

As for the RfC proposal, I assume you are referring to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#RfC:_Amending_requirements_for_WP:MMAEVENT, that isn't holding MMA articles to a higher standard, it is holding it to the standard of the general notability guidelines, for which all articles are held to. It is clarifying the sources that can be used to support notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it's your stance that wiki will delete a huge mass of pages involving tons of editors out of principle (to follow the precedent set here), do you care to start some AfD's as JJB suggested to test out that theory? Seems simple enough as you stated. Evidence not words is paramount here. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually daring me to nominate an article for deletion? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion to prove a theory is pointy. It should not be done. Then again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego tires. Seriously, OTHERSTUFF applies across the board here, and I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the conspiracy theory here? Kelapstick claims that policy shall be applied uniformly across wiki, when we all know it's not. What exactly is the dispute? Agent00f (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Kelapstick, I wasn't the one who originally suggested this, if you read the RfC. However the point stands that the same shitstorm would result if anyone tried to apply GNG direct to useful lists of material elsewhere on wiki (given that there's hundreds of them and even more when compounded) as it's been done here. Agent00f (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is your conspiracy theory that MMA articles are treated differently than other articles. Who is this "we" that you are referring to? Who exactly is saying that Wikipedia policy is not applied uniformly? From what I can see, you are the only one who knows that Wikipedia policy is not spread uniformly. I do not disagree that there would be a shitstorm if someone started mass nominating TV episodes or WWE events, but just because nominations will result in a shitstorm, it doesn't mean the nominations are wrong. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "conspiracy" to state that cohesive sets of MMA articles are being destroyed left and right for months while the same kind of cohesive sets existing perfectly fine everywhere else on wiki? Your contention is that this will set a precedent to enforce across all of wiki, and that it will probably result in the same massively disruptive process for very questionable gain. Do we agree up to this point? Agent00f (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that this would set precedent. So please don't twist my words. What I said was:

• There was a discussion on ANI about "walled garden" notability criteria for pages that fall within a WikiProject, and maybe that is going to be the next step, clamping down on WikiProjects that lower the bar to keep stand alone articles. Or maybe it will not.

If you find that difficult to understand I will explain it a little clearer. Some editors have noticed that notability criteria is lower for pages within certain WikiProjects (including, but not exclusive to MMA articles), and that something should be done about it. Maybe something will be done about it, or maybe nothing will be done about it. Since I do not have the ability to see the future, I do not know what the outcome is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This was what you said right before: "Once this RFC completes, maybe you will see it spreading." Did you care to read the RfC where it's obvious that hundreds of similar lists and thousands of sublists exist on wiki? Would you say that ALL of them might be under new scrutiny subsequently if MMA gets hacked first? I better alert contributors in all those list that the kind of unsubstantial political BS that's been poisoning this subject is possibly coming their way. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I dislike talking to people who respond to rational statements and questions with slippery slope arguments, rhetoric, and even more questions. I will not continue a discussion with someone who chooses not to listen. Quite frankly, this discussion has been like having a discussion with a brick wall. So I consider this matter closed from my end, my intention was to reply to a query from IP 24, which I have done. Good day. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems quite rational to assume that if this will be the opening salvo in a broader fight for "something", and we can already see how much it's poisoned the atmosphere here over many months, I don't see how it's any of the things you describe to ponder if that's what we wish on wiki in general. Agent00f (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I said good day. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's extremely unlikely that all the television projects will be subjected to mass deletion based on notability policies. It's obviously no secret that a majority of the television related articles do not meet these policies but to go through all the television projects and nominate all those articles for deletion would require a huge amount of time and effort involving a massive "shit storm" as each new community was targeted. The reality is that people don't dislike tv shows with the same passion that certain people dislike mixed martial arts and, as you said, "we are all volunteers, and we are free to edit where we like, with the enthusiasm that we wish to". There are certain people who are obviously willing to put a great deal of effort into getting mixed martial arts events removed from wikipedia but there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to put the same (or likely even more) effort into removing tv show articles.

Couldn't it be argued, then, that these nominations for deletion based on notability are being done in bad faith? Since there are literally thousands of articles that don't meet notability policies but the ones that are targeted for deletion are the ones that certain people just don't like. They cite notability policies in their nominations but what is their motivation for nominating this set of articles and not the countless other examples guilty of the same thing?

When these policies are applied inconsistently, it makes wikipedia appear biased against certain topics. Think of the impression this gives to WP:READERS. They can come to wiki to read about the latest episode of their favourite tv show but they can't come here to read about the latest ufc event? 24.70.78.42 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that policies are often inconsistently applied across WP, that's not a valid rationale for the inclusion of non-notable MMA events. You mention that "There are certain people who are obviously willing to put a great deal of effort into getting mixed martial arts events removed from wikipedia". The omnibus exists as a method to ensure all events, including ones that do not satisfy WP:GNG, are able to be included in WP, and not completely removed. None but shining hours (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read proposal 1 at the RfC I linked above, that is a very similar plan which is both superior in design and more consistent with wiki policy (on lists) which most of the MMA space would support. Note the vehement opposition to it by the same parties who think omnibus is grand. The politics of this seem pretty obvious. Agent00f (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I took some time to read the proposal you referenced and I tend to agree that JJB's position may ultimately be the most pragmatic approach to the issue at hand. Regarding the "vehement opposition", it could be related to the venue in which the proposal was made, judging by some of the user's replies. None but shining hours (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not been watching this page but I appreciate the support of shining hours. The 24 IP raises a good question that is also sympathetic to my policy-based proposal. It is possible that wide discussion of these similarities may result in a breakthrough. JJB 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is willing to participate in MEDCAB now?

Hello talk page editors,

At some point in a disagreement people need to see that they are not moving towards agreement. If they don't then they can't try to solve a dispute in a new way. I believe it's time to realize this discussion isn't working towards harmonious co-editing.

Abortion article titles was such an intractable problem for WP that ArbCom sent it for community comment with administrators having final permanent say. There's no reason to let this disagreement continue until it goes that far. It's an exhausting route and I bet a number of editors would be too fed up to make it to the end.

I am asking that anyone who feels this entire discussion is progressing to everyone's satisfaction state that now.

MEDCAB is not an enemy. In fact, while things are less unhappy at this talk page it is likely the best time to try mediation in my opinion. It wouldn't be wise to wait to try mediation when the parties are in the worst possible moods.

I am asking that anyone willing to try MEDCAB state that now. Factseducado (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2012 Factseducado (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that discussion is moving to the satisfaction of all

• I'm confused, do you mean discussion moving towards consensus? Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have slightly edited the subheads in accord with Factseducado's apparent intent. JJB 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you JJB for fixing this. I have not tried to do something this complicated before.
      • Newmanoconnor, I actually mean does each participant feel discussion here is moving forward to the satisfaction of all. One opposite would be that discussion is deadlocked. Another opposite would be that a few people of one opinion do not feel satisfied with the discussion in some way. Factseducado (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't think discussion is remotely deadlocked,interfered with,filibustered,but certainly not deadlocked. you should read up past all of agents nonsense to the proposals we were working on, if you aren't interested in that, well I'm going to start working on lists for previous years and getting things setup like the Bamma pages Hasteur did such a good job on. then I'll probably start Nominating sub par articles to AfD.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Newmanoconnor, I have read many months of this. You said something similar about me on another page regarding believing I have not read this page. I responded to you there. I would like for you to stop repeating this now that I have told you twice it is false. Factseducado (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, discussion is NOT moving to the satisfaction of all

1. See below Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. The RFC should be closed as no consensus and interested parties should proceed to neutral third-party mediation, er, immediately. My nascent content proposal has hope for transcending the notability question there but needs to be presented in such way that more people understand it. JJB 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
3. I endorse this statement. I also agree this RfC should be closed and move to mediation right now. This really can get worse. I have seen JJB's proposal being examined and refined. It does appear to offer some potentially very useful ways of working both in this area and in many similar topics on WP. Something needs to be done to address areas like this so they don't end up being so contentious for so long. It burns out volunteers and it isn't healthy. Factseducado (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Too often in the last couple of months, constructive discussion gets derailed by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:IDHT, and simple petty bickering. And any possible progress seems to be halted at the moment. I would agree the existing RFC on this page should be closed (or at least taken off the RFC list) as a disaster. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I am willing to go to MEDCAB now

1. If someone else drafts the page. If I feel like drafting it I'll just do it. JJB 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. If I belong in MEDCAB on this topic I am definitely willing to cooperate fully and go. I have never seen a draft made so I am unsure how to do it. Also I don't know if I qualify. I will ask there.Factseducado (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Another involved party has privately indicated willingness to engage in mediation at MEDCAB. that person decided that signing his or her name here might be disruptive to the process which he or she doesn't want. He or she fears people who are unhappy with him or her might choose the opposite route because they are unhappy with him or her. Factseducado (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm partly endorsing this statement. I believe that this single talk page is not the best structure for MMA event notability discussions. I don't know if WP:MEDCAB is the correct venue as I have zero experience with it. However, seeing how a RFC/U is handled and the example of MEDCAB below, I like the idea of having a page for proposals, endorsements, etc and a separate talk page for the general discussion and potential derailment to be "hidden". --TreyGeek (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Every involved person will have to agree to participate in order to go to MEDCAB. I think that at MEDCAB the people who aren't agreeing can work alone or can form groups of people whose outlook is shared. I think the discussion happens privately with one's own group. Then all groups draft something and their draft is what becomes visible to others. Then instead of bickering the mediator asks specific questions. This limits the interaction among the people who are not agreeing. This happens a few times so that people have time to change their minds and tweak things. So I think it might have the effect of working the way you would like something to work. My opinion is, "Why not try something new because this isn't working well."Factseducado (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I am NOT willing to go to MEDCAB now

1. I (and I suspect Medcom/Medcab) would like to see a proper RfC conducted here that is not filibustered and has a reasonable chance at being accepted by the community at large (not overturned). As such, I consider mediation preemptive at this time. Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe MEDCAB has stated a willingness to potentially take this on. I urge you to reconsider.Factseducado (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation Requested. Hasteur (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in correspondence with a MEDCAB coordinator. So far he has stated it is possible and requested more information about a desired outcome. I provided that to him. He will respond when he can. I'll let this page know. Of course each involved party needs to agree to the mediation. Hasteur, I think your views could move forward more quickly in mediation. I'd like you to agree to go to mediation. Factseducado (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better served sitting right here and finishing out a clean first attempt at coming to a resolution first. FYI: correspondence with the MEDCAB coordinator is not an endorsement that the dispute is appropriate for MEDCAB. Please desist from trying to shift the notability discussion from here where MMA notability is to be discussed prior to a non-disruptive having concluded (WP:FORUMSHOP). Hasteur (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that nobody can go to MEDCAB if you don't want to go, right? MEDCAB has not indicated this is forum shopping. You should get an outside opinion about that. I think it's basically always alright to ask MEDCAB if they are willing to take a potential case. Factseducado (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Other questions or discussion

• Can someone point out some archived MEDCAB issues that shows good examples of how this process works? I've never been anywhere near the MEDCAB process and I looked through a few of the archives and didn't find anything to suggest the process is useful. That could be due to randomly clicking on archived issues. So if there are good examples of the process that would be helpful. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are right. I have followed a MEDCAB case and that is why I think it is a possible way forward. I am going to go look at the case I watched. The process proceeds by stages. I will go look for one or two stages of the same case. However, I am eating dinner now. Factseducado (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Below is the link to Step Seven Brainstorming on the topic of Wikipedia:Verifiability which does in some way relate to this discussion about notability. The mediator is very respectful of all of the parties. Ideas can't just be shot down because more people vote for them than against them. Ideas are valued as a step forward. I believe this case has been going on since late February but at least it's progressing. I don't feel forward progress is coming on this MMA issue and even if it is it's at too high a cost to editors past and present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Step_seven_brainstorm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the 'link'. This is definitely a good example compared to the random archives I was clicking on. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I'm glad you found it helpful. I can see why looking at the same thing I have looked at makes communication easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Deal: de facto notability for all UFC event articles

UFC events all get articles because we can make them worthy. We can work together. Other events all appear in omnibuses or get own articles if particularly notabile.

Why is this good?

• Everything gets coverage
• Complete set of dazzling UFC event articles
• Lasting solution

• Mtking and TreyGeek: You didn't respond to this compromise. UFC events, expanded and well sourced are worthy? Do you agree?

• Wikipedia community: UFC event articles don't get inherent notability, but de facto notability because we make them worthy. Do you agree?

• MMA fans: It will never get better than this. Non-UFC articles will never, ever, ever, all get articles. Not because a few hardliners say so. Because the whole community will never allow it. Please support this and all UFC event articles will be safe and be excellent. If you don't support this, there will never be a complete set of UFC event articles, and we all lose. I am on your side, and this is the best deal. What sayeth thee?!?!

Please, no lengthy debates. Support or oppose! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good idea, Anna! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose See discussion below Hasteur (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Fair compromise 76.103.153.126 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose See comments below Mtking ^(edits) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support One look at this talk page proves what a mess has been created because of a group editors who have no interest in the sport and seem to revel in their disruption of UFC coverage on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose All UFC events are not inherently notable, there is wide consensus about this from the WP community, not just those involved in these discussions, one only needs to look at AfD's,the recent ANi's, Dispute resolution, etc. The current guidelines are fairly clear,and while I have been for compromises to work towards RfC, I am not interested in opening up WP to exceptions to our fundamentals.I still support giving wide leeway in the Omnibus for posters,etc. I'm just at the point where I may just start rebuilding the Omnibus and start merging. MMANOT currently supports this, and I'd rather put my efforts into that , than this circular logical fallacy with Anna, Agent, and the SPA's.
• Oppose: "Compromise" ≠ "give us what we want." Ravenswing 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to giving you what you want. Portillo (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose MMA does not get special exemptions. This is firmly against established WP:GNG policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think I've made my arguments before. I can accept this compromise. The majority of UFC events meet inherent notability if the sport itself is considered notable, and having 20% or whatever missing is not worth compromising the navigability or uniformity. And believe me, this is definitely a compromise as there are a number of events from other promotions that I would consider worthy of independent articles.Beansy (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think this is fair. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The criteria for notability requires (1) significant coverage (2) that is reliable from (3) secondary, (4) independent sources. All UFC events receive regular and substantial coverage from dozens of news outlets, thus satisfying these conditions. Therefore, every UFC event is notable. This is evidenced by the large number of visitors, who are overwhelmingly rejecting the omnibus format and are feeling alienated by privileged Wikipedians who are not responding adequately to the majority's objections. An argument I keep reading is that other sports leagues do not have individual pages for each game, but this is an illogical comparison since a single UFC is a collection of over a dozen games. 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. I would very much appreciate a response. Thank You. Trevori —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Well, that's one big snowball. :) I kinda figured. Oh, well, like I said, it was a Hail Mary pass. I had to be able to say I tried. I still luv you all nonetheless. Good luck. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with something better. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 6

This still makes the the assumption that all UFC event articles are notable from their inception. By an extention of this logic all NFL/NBA game articles are immediately notable when they're announced on the schedule for the year. Starting the content for the article as a section in some larger article (with a redirect from the event's name to the section) to be split out once there's enough and appropriate content is actually a better and WPKosher way to develop the content. Hasteur (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You could change to: Support on the grounds that these will all exist as sections within the omni long before they become articles. So, new stubs can be automatically redirected back to omni until break-away point. Okay? Support? Please, look for ways to support the solution. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the razor edge of support, but the way the proposal is written still leaves (in my mind) the opportunity to Wiki Lawyer the creation of stand alone articles and to then point at the proposal as it's justification for the creation of new event articles that are similar to what we have currently. I'd be fine with a codicil or a subsection explaining that the proposal does not grant any exemption to existing best practices or guidelines for MMA articles. Hasteur (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal is not in step with WP:NOT and WP:EVENT, there is no evidence that ALL UFC events do in fact have any enduring notability (as defined by WP), and this proposal would effectively grant that. As a result there is next to no chance this will pass a wiki wide RfC and still leaves articles open to nomination for deletion that do not demonstrate they indeed pass both WP:NOT and WP:EVENT. Mtking ^(edits) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Would the above mentioned subsection/suggestion about all new events get automatically merge/redirected back to the Omnibus satisfy your concern and opposition? Hasteur (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) It could do, it would depend on the wording, it would have to be clear as to exactly what is required to demonstrate the event has met the enduring notability test of WP:NOT & WP:EVENT. Mtking ^(edits)

I wish you people would stop comparing a UFC event to a NFL or soccer game. It is not the same thing. A UFC event is a pay-per-view like WWE or boxing, not a season game. Portillo (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We use examples to show a logical fallacy, but to replace it in WWE terms for you, the example would be "By an extention of this logic all WWE event articles are immediately notable when they're announced on the schedule." See, the logic still doesn't hold up. I just picked NFL/NBA because those are the more predominant sports in my neck of the woods. Hasteur (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

See List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events. Each performance of each program has its own page. See also my support of Anna's suggestion above. Trevori —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Your example doesn't show a logical fallacy, it is a logical fallacy in itself. A UFC event has 12 or so individual matches, and therefor doesn't compare in any way to your typical NFL or soccer match. Now, if you were to insist on comparing a UFC events to a NFL or soccer match, UFC events that feature a title fight should be treated the same as NFL or soccer championship matches. So they warrant their own pages, just like superbowls, champions league finals, and FA cup finals have their own pages.76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Correct me if I am wrong but have not NFL games and soccer games both been pay-per-view at some point, just being PPV does not confer some magical status on an event. WP has a policy that it only covers events that have demonstrated enduring notability; of cause in relation to any given event from the point of view of both the participants and witnesses it has lasting personl significance, but as an encyclopaedia we have to look to the wider world, I have repeatedly asked and have never been answered, what is the enduring notability of one of these events to the wider world  ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the enduring notability of any sporting event or season on the world? Outside of maybe a handful events that truly change human history, we are talking about sports here. Wimbledon doesn't have enduring notability on the 'wider world'. Nor does a WWE event. A Superbowl. An F1 GP. The Indy 500. A PGA tour. A Tour de France. A Champions League final. Or any other event you can think of. They do not impact the wider world, but they do impact the world of the sport in question. And before you start quoting WP:OTHERSTUFF: years and years of Wikipedia tradition go against your interpretation of what is notable and not when applied to sporting events. Sporting events are notable not based on their impact the wider world, but on their impact on the sport itself. Stop wikilawyering your way out of this one. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

May be your right, maybe your wrong, but we are talking about a MMA events here. As an aside a number of the events you listed (Motor racing, Golf & Tennis tournaments, cycling tours) are held over multiple days not just over one evening, I can also quote sports events held over multiple days such as Test Match Cricket that don't get an article per event. Mtking ^(edits) 03:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere on any policy is there a distinction made regarding the duration of an event, so I don't see how that is relevant. Or we can point out the 90 minute soccer matches and 3 hour super bowls are much shorter than your average UFC event (6-8 hours) that do have their own pages. "We are talking about a MMA event here". What does that even mean? Are you suggesting MMA events are inherently less notable than other sports? Why do you hold MMA to a different standard than a F1 GP, Soccer Final, PGA Tournament, or cycling tour? 76.103.153.126 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is that you can not compare sports with each other and say this one is more notable than the other or one is less notable than the other. Mtking ^(edits) 04:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comparing sports with each other, I'm making a general point. The Wikipedia community at large does not judge sporting events based on their impact on the wider world. They judge sports events based on their overall popularity and the impact on the said sports. You're moving the goal posts by having setting the bar impossibly high by stating that MMA events need to impact the wider world, while the same criteria doesn't apply to any other sport on the website. It's an impossible hurdle for any sporting event to clear, and should not be used as a criteria in this discussion. By using your criteria, not a single MMA event will ever be considered notable. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have always maintained that if an individual MMA event article contains prose discussing the event and cites independent sources, then the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not convinced that every UFC event that has been held can meet this standard. Yes, they can all be improved to contain prose discussing the event. However, I'm not sure that all of the events received independent coverage, particularly with the debate over what qualifies as "significant coverage ... independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). If I'm wrong and the articles can include such prose and sources, then great. If not, then it seems to me the event is not notable to have its own article on Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

With foreign sources, I'm sure all can meet the requirements you seek. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it sounds there is no need to make special exceptions for the UFC, if that is truly the case. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

exactly, our current notability guidelines are fine,no need to make any exceptions for UFC. Especially the idea that UFC carries inherent notability and should also be an exception as a walled garden.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, sources are not the problem, there is an abundance of sources both foreign and domestic, the issue is ones that demonstrate enduring notability; the only ones proffered to date are just routine coverage of sports results. Mtking ^(edits) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Newmanoconnor and Mtking:

This uncompromising position will never lead to anything more than a slight change in status quo. Replacing all these articles with tidy omnis is a dream. AfDs and new creations will continue forever. If you want to dig your heels in and cite rules, nothing will change. We are allow to compromise with rules, you know? You are fighting this as though your side will prevail and all will be well. It won't. No compromise, no change. Instead of shooting down ideas and digging in your heels, why not suggest conditions or terms where things can work? The current state is the worst possible. What can you suggest to make it better? All I hear is NOT NOT NOPE CANNOT. Please offer something constructive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:NOT is a policy and as such if we were to agree here that as a project we would allow an article per UFC event, that will not stop someone nominating them as failing WP:NOT (not withstanding passing the projects guideline) and gets us no further forward. I am willing to compromise if that compromise will actually work. Mtking ^(edits) 05:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what others out there may do, what about you? Would you AfD fully developed UFC articles? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would nominate any event article (mma or otherwise) that failed WP:NOT and did not demonstrate enduring notability. I know that does not address your question, but anyone could compose a fully sourced article containing a dozen paragraphs of prose on any sports event and it could still fail the enduring notability test and should be merged/deleted. On the other-hand a one paragraph stub article could (with the right sourcing) demonstrate enduring notability and should be retained. Mtking ^(edits) 06:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being clear. I don't think it's very pragmatic, but I appreciate your candor. As I see it, strictly abiding by the letter of the law will not improve nor resolve this situation. The aim of course is to ensure high quality, but in effect I think it leaves the MMA project in a permanent shambles.

Last question that you never really answered: Do you have a solution that will improve the situation?

I don't think I have anything further to offer. I will probably now just leave this mess to exist indefinitely. What the heck, it was a Hail Mary anyhow. Can't say I didn't try. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You people say that we should not compare UFC to other sports, yet claim that UFC events are not notable because NFL and soccer games are not notable. Portillo (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Portillo, your commentary suggests that you do not consider yourself part of the group attempting to find a solution. Pease consider not using exclusionary language, like "you people". I hope we're all in this together to try and find a workable solution for all parties.Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Declaring all UFC events as inherently notable is clearly inconsistent with WP:GNG. Additionally, such a declaration is clearly beyond the scope of an RFC on the talk page of an essay. This would be greatly exceeding the authority of this discussion, as it would have implications that extended far beyond this one area. As far as proposals go, it is a non-starter, if only on procedural grounds. In short, we don't have the authority to do that here, regardless of any vote count. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis: This plan was about de facto not inherent. Fixing up the UFC event articles so they are highly likely to be safe. No promises or guarantees. Just an effort to make them as resilient to AfD as possible. I never mentioned inherent notability in this idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, maybe you aren't clear on what de facto means. "From the fact" as in practice not in policy,In reality,etc.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I mused over different ways of putting it. I meant apparent, self-evident, obvious so based on what it is, etc. Anyway, I'm not supposed to be here any longer. I've been enjoying the monkey off my back, the bone out of my throat, the...well, you get the picture.........!*poof*! (ninja smoke bomb)...she's gone. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, Mtking's criteria above is that nothing is notable unless it changes the world in a material way ("enduring notability"). Everything else is simply routine. Of course, the fact that an endless list of things on wiki, incl utterly forgettable 15-min-of-fame reality shows such as America's Next Top Model, fails this test is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Agent00f (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we please eliminate the NFL/NBA game comparison fallacy? It's come up before. First off, UFC cards generally have 10-12 matches on them with different ramifications in different divisions. It's not one match on a card (and no one is arguing for individual articles for individual matches here). Additionally, there are over 1200 NBA games a year and 256 regular season NFL games a year last I checked (soon to be 288). The UFC hasn't had that many events in its entire history. Finally, individual NBA or NFL games do not get even sporting press coverage months in advance unless they're the Superbowl. UFC events do. This is because none of the fighters scheduled are likely to fight between the time their fight is announced for the card and the card itself, months down the line, and usually there are going to be either a world title on the line or serious title ramifications on any given card. The comparison to individual NBA and NFL games is fallacious. Beansy (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Round of applause for Agent00f and Beansy. The disruptive mess that has been created is truly unbelievable. This debate belongs here. Portillo (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What's quite notable here is that this isn't the first time these specifics have been brought to the attention of Mtking. The evidence to date shows an absolute inability to learn anything about the subject, and the most charitable interpretation is a complete lack of interest. This doesn't seem conducive to developing an informed opinion. Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also have to agree that the UFC, and MMA in general, doesn't fall under the category of general sports. MMA events aren't covered in newspapers or sports shows/programs that aren't dedicated to MMA specifically. As such, I do not think it's fair to say that UFC cards fail WP:EVENT due to being a routine sports match.

Seeing as how the UFC is the absolute pinnacle of MMA fighting around the world (there is no higher ranked organization or inclusion in the Olympics), I think WP:MMAEVENT should be revised to reflect that. In comparison, any song that makes it to the top of the US Billboard Top 100 ends up passing WP:NMUSIC, even if there's really no other information about it. A song, such as Too_Much_(Elvis_Presley_song), is simply notable just because at one point it was the most played song in the US. As UFC cards are the most watched MMA events, I believe they should be given the same notability clause. 174.99.51.98 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)