Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2

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

The result was delete. As stated, this fails an alphabet-soup of policies, guidelines and essays; Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. No prejudice against redirect creation; if it's desired that the page be userified for later or retrieving content for merging, ping me and I'll happily do so. The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFL 2

[edit]
SFL 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based of the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) in addition to being a event that is going to happen in the future, that this article should also be deleted. It should be noted that this article was created during the SFL1 (2nd Nomination) deletion discussion by an author who saw (and posted) in the AfD so it is safe to assume that they should have been aware that the individual SFL event articles were being challenged for inclusion to Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions Hasteur (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notified everyone who participated in the SFL 1 (2nd nomination) discussion Hasteur (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As par WP:GNG, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:EVENT. Both events meet these policies an for the SFL 1 page to have been deleted is really a crime when considering all the facts of the event, such as it being India's first MMA event, the first event for the first Indian based MMA promotion, first MMA event in history to be streamed live on Youtube etc. That was nothing short of a crime in truth and I am prepared to contest that result. Until then all I can do now is defend this page also. BigzMMA (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.". - David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its SFL Bjmullan, as in SUPER FIGHT LEAGUE, these events are highly notable, they have had articles written by the highest papers in India, which in accordance to GNG, national coverage counts towards notability, just because, say, The New York Times may not of written about it, it doesn't mean to say it has no notability. Discriminating an foreign event based on foreign coverage for a foreign promotion holds no power for deletion votes on here and I am more than happy to point out which users has done so accompanied with the pages done on, some of which are actually on this page already. BigzMMA (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (sigh) Here we go again. I understand Bigz's concerns, but these articles fails some policies on notability. The event may be the first based in India, first to be streamed live on Youtube, yadda yadda yadda, but like David has said, "the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references for reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of the coverage lasted beyond the end of the event". It fails the "and show that the duration of the coverage lasted beyond the end of the event" as it hasn't even started yet. None of the sources give lasting and significant coverage, so therefore I am in favor of deletion. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the promotion's first event was the first MMA event to be streamed live through Youtube, the worlds biggest, most recognised video sharing website on the internet clearly shows historical significance. It was covered by the Times of India, the country's version of The New York Times or USA Today, so clearly independent of the subject itself, both the promotion or even the sport in general. It was heavily covered throughout India post event, which if you read the comment just above your vote you'd see that I have something to say about your '"and show that the duration of the coverage lasted beyond the end of the event"' statement. As far as this event goes, it is being treated the same way by the national media, and these biased votes based of clear lack of invested research has clearly shows that what I am saying about the delete voters on here are not lies, but fact-full statement. If this page gets deleted as well, I will have no choice but to create a '2012 in SFL' page, which I am deeply against but will most likely have no choice to do, considering this relentless attack on MMA event over the course of the last few weeks. I will fight to defend each and every MMA event as best as I can, but the day I see that the only way I can look at past UFC events through a 'year in UFC' page I will be done with Wikipedia, as that day would mean Wikipedia has turned to a prison created by the very immates that someone accidentially given powers to create, delete and create ridiculous policies to decide which is what! BigzMMA (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bigz, your "I'm prepared to make 2012 in SFL" constitutes a threat of continued disruption and could be used as behavorial evidence of not getting the point. WP:BURDEN says that it's the responsibility of content adders to back up their claims (including notability) with references. Each time you claim that the local media is treating these promotions with more than the standard coverage we don't have anything to judge it on. Ergo you are failing at the "burden test" Hasteur (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hasteur, it has been talked about for a while now that all events for MMA promotion should fall under a single page based on things like the year it was held in, the TV channel it was on, the time period (as the case is with Bellator) so pages can hold enough notability to remain on here. I am strongly against the idea due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia and that all information should unquestionably be on here. However due to these literal crimes that are being called policies (which are actually guidelines, which means they should not have to be followed and in turn not actual reasons to delete, only policies like WP:GNG are cases for/against a page), they are being removed, but a lot of people who votes delete on these AfDs have said having a 'year in SFL' page is something they wouldn't mind having, hence they would probably not look to delete them if they are made. It shouldn't be done, but it will have to be if this keeps carrying on. Its not like this information is harming anyone, nor is it costing a thing so who are we protecting this stuff from? Wikipedia is going to the dogs (that is a fact) and only the UFC events, which have been able to remain as separate pages as of now, are the final front line to keeping me using and editing Wikipedia. If they get merged into a pages, then thats me gone, because I can't be asked taking this shit from you guys any more. Wikipedia is for information, not for debates for it and you guys have lost that sometime ago. As far as your 'local media is treating these promotions with more than the standard coverage we don't have anything to judge it on.' statement goes, it is also stated in WP:GNG that it can be covered even on non-internet sources (i.e. TV, Newspapers etc), so you may want to try again with that line! :) BigzMMA (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BigzMMA, please strike your personal attacks (shit from you guys, However due to these literal crimes..., etc.) from your posts in this discussion immediately. As per WP:NPA your comments have been derogatory and insulting to editors who have been attempting to hold up the policies of Wikipedia in opposition to your efforts to dilute them and make Wikipedia a vehicle for promoting and collecting information on every last single Mixed Martial Arts promotion/fighter/league. Other editors would have taken the hint about what Wikipedia considers Notable, however you seem to be so single minded that it appears the only way to get through to you is by a hard bat and not the soft cluebat. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't that what an encyclopedia is, for every piece of information on every subject? Because if not then this website is misleading people who use it that what they think it is really isn't. "the only way to get through to you is by a hard bat and not the soft cluebat"? And your telling me that I'm the one dishing out personal attacks??? Because this sounds like your threatening me with physical violence. Fellow editors keep note of this for future AfDs/ANI etc cases. BigzMMA (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to a request to strike Personal attacks by making another personal attack is not the way to foster a collegial editing environment. The "soft clue bats" have been our up to now fairly calm and reasoned explanations of why your reasoning is faulty and warning you about your actions when they go against the policies and practices of Wikipedia. The "hard bat" is reporting you to one of the Action taking noticeboards (AN/ANI/WQA) to have sanctions applied against you. In no way did I threaten you with physical violence! I was explicitly enumerating what the next action on my part will be if you don't fall in line with WP policies immediateley (as evidenced by your final warning about "No Personal Attacks" delivered by TreyGeek. If you don't strike every single personal attack here in 24 hours I'm going to ANI for a block and AN for a topic ban concerning MMA topics on you as you appear to be unable to discuss these topics logically and without emotion or personal involvement. Hasteur (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BigzMMA, your arguments about what an encyclopedia is in relation to Wikipedia was addressed by the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination). The admin, in deleting SFL 1 stated the "Wikipedia should have everything" argument is invalid. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I have no interest whatsoever in this subject and I find myself here because I'm tracking another editor who does apparently have an interest. For those of you who think the subject is not notable have a look here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17395464 Seems to me it is notable, and the reason why at least some editors are going for deletion is for other unrelated matter. I think its called pov or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal isn't about deleting an article on the sport, the organisation, the league, or the series, but about deleting the article on one specific event, which hasn't yet taken place. I'm not clear, CookBookCharlie, in what way you feel that the BBC link you gave us is supposed to demonstrate the compliance of the article on that future event with the criteria in WP:MMAEVENT, which I will quote again, in case you didn't read them above:
"To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event."?
- David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the matter Hasteur? you see a good, accurately written comment made by someone who believes that the page/s should be kept and you want to downplay them as much as you can? Instead of trying to fight me at every turn why don't you try something more creative such as agreeing that a 'Year in SFL' page, though I strongly disagree with it, should be made? BigzMMA (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally - TOTALLY irrelevant. My edits or lack of them have nothing at all to do with it and such a statement is typical of the garbage I've found here at times on Wikipedia. I am pointing you to an external reputable source which demonstrates notability. That's all. I point you to a fact, so what in the name of hell has my history to do with that. Assess the fact, not me! Incredible!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you CookBookCharlie, but sadly that is how many users now want to play AfDs these days when dealing with MMA related subjects. BigzMMA (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this event hasn't occurred yet and based on the SFL 1 AfD that we don't see the group of individual SFL events notable, nor do we have a general listing for the list of events. Ergo it doesn't make sense for a merge to occur. Hasteur (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SFL_2&oldid=1138328690"