Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 2

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. When you have editors both arguing to Keep and Delete with the same rationale (i.e. WP:SPORTSEVENT) it is clear that the relevance of this type of event to the guideline needs to be re-assessed Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 2

UFC 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)

This event fails

lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Mtking (edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 'Keep per JJB. Nominator must also note the existence of my vote on all the AfDs or else.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claim is made in the article to any enduring notability (
    Mtking (edits) 03:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep
    WP:POINTy nomination. Simple as that. Gamezero05 05:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Objection to NAC. NAC appeared to go based on vote countang and not considering the policy reasons for alternative closures. Request for Administrator evaluation of closure. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was nothing stated by editor who made the NAC which would implicitly or explicitly imply it was based on vote counting alone. Several policy reasons for Keep were given in this discussion. BearMan998 (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close, with agreement. Well, your right, there were several policies. Would anyone have an objection if I close the article as Keep. My edit summary may have implied it, but I did look through the policies. Any objections, state below. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. There has been debate as to how we should close this and it was requested that an admin close it. Is 12 hours the time frame we're using for Consensus changing? Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, where is the 'debate'? Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close as keep This is an obvious
WP:POINTy nomination. Should have been speedy kept long ago. Gamezero05 17:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Close as keep This does in fact appear to be a
WP:POINT nomination out of pure frustration on the part of the nominator. BearMan998 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
A dictionary entry? No. It (1) is more than definition, (2) is about an event and (3) is not a ussage, slang, and/or idiom guide.--Jahalive (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Possibly this should be merged into to a yearly or other summary article, but that should be determined in a single focussed discussion, not through dozens of individual deletion discussions. "Unsourced" is not a valid reason for deletion. The requirements are: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes" or "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." That is not the case with this article.--Jahalive (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was fine to begin with since it documented an historic event. Still, I have added some more prose to the article as well as 5 or 6 more references.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of your references did not qualify under Independent Reliable sources. Please see how I went through and moved some of the links around (including moving the ref's IMDB to his page). Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close, per
    WP:SPORTSEVENT. Cavarrone (talk) 20:12, 8 June 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/UFC_2&oldid=1090454161"