Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard (2nd nomination)

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. A redirect or merge needs some sort of target, so if one is created, let me know and I'll change this to merge. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. having notable participants isn't good enough. no third party coverage in mainstream press. mere attendance of 1,700. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an omnibus article. If no such appropriate article exists, the closing admin should close this as "no consensus". The socalled MMA community may be tired of getting all this information deleted. It has been said that putting (cramming) all the stuff (information) into an omnibus is a safe haven. So let's do that for all the events where N fighters just "stand and bang", some looses, some is winning. This concludes my vote. Sorry for not throwing out

WP: policies and hope that some sticks... Mazter00 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or Merge - Does not fall under
WP:SPORTSEVENT because one fight card is not the same as one football game. Capacity at the Pearl at the Palms is small, so that shouldn't have anything to do with determining notability. Covered by USA Today (long before most MMA events got mainstream coverage). Worst case scenerio, merge to an omnibus for 2007 UFC fights. Luchuslu (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an omnibus article, something like 2007 in UFC. I can't make a good case for a standalone article on this event - there was no title fight, and nothing notable happened. The content shouldn't be lost, though. CaSJer (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Specifically, comments related to the target of the merged article as I could not find an omnibus target. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as bad faith nom per
WP:TEND. It takes all of two seconds to Google search this subject and find coverage in mainstream newspapers such as USA Today. Considering that at worst there is a redirect target, there is no fact based reason for deletion. Obviously nominator either does not know about the subject, is lying, or is too lazy to actually look for sources. --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Editor has been blocked as a sock. Mkdw ^talk 07:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails
WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2013 (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.