Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK MMA Awards

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. The people suggesting that we keep the article has not been able to show that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) exists. Should such coverage appear the article can of course be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK MMA Awards

If you came here because a plea made by the administrator of The Fight Lounge for its users to vote keep (Note, screenshots were taken of the forum thread since the administrator said he was deleting the tread), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is an article about a new award from an MMA website. The article was created by someone connected with the website and has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 20:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the only links I can find for these awards are by the website giving out the award (which apparently isn't notable enough to have an article about itself) and receivers of the awards. I was unable to find any significant coverage by independent sources. Thus fails WP:GNG --TreyGeek (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comments on advice of an admin due to user now indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find that it passed WP:GNG. Mind listed the "significant coverage by independent sources"? --TreyGeek (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It seems significant enough for me. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Can you list the sources? Without a list and without any in the article (which currently contains only sources by a single site), then your keep !vote has no weight. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just copying and pasting "Fails WP:GNG" as I keep seeing carries no weight either. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG This is the only real awards ceremony in UK MMA, should people be able to see who won what each year? I have added a few more references from other sources than the fight lounge..there is now no reason to delete--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)— Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:V. There is still no significant independent coverage. The only sources are the site that created the awards and the sites from some of the winners saying "we won this award." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudent0 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well what other sources would cover mma awards other than mma websites and the winners/nominees...you come across as stupid--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read about what independent sources are. For example, your site is not independent of its own awards. Astudent0 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no..the UK MMA Awards is a separate body..it's just we choose to reveal the results on The Fight Lounge as an exclusive to that site--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:V. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [1] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC) struck opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep par WP:GNG and WP:V. During the time of the first Awards, it received a lot of attention in the UK, but as times passes by, it can become harder to trace all the articles out from the time it was released (as we all know). An example of how this has actually happened before was with the first ProElite events pages, which contained a lot of good articles which were easily obtained at the time due to the fact they were created prior to each event the same way as many UFC event are, but because of someone stupidly nominating it for deletion, and the many more idiots who got it deleted, when they were recreated and survived their second nomination, the pages look weaker than their originals. Differences is with these is that they are only now been made, so if anything we need to preserve these so that we locate all the other vital articles and add them onto this page! BigzMMA (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Starwar1 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep as notable event and within rules --Redbaronfury (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep--London84tfl (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)keep as within rules and notable event— London84tfl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that London84tfl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep as within rules and notable event--Brashleyholland (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete as failing verification of notability by reliable sources. Sockpuppet/meatpuppeting aside, in the end, it simply doesn't pass the criteria by having multiple sources that give significant coverage (or any, for that matter) by independent sources. Simply SAYING it is notable doesn't make it true, any more than saying I can fly means I am a bird. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
id does have sources though, from various websites. It is notable. It is obvious that while you may not be able to fly, you have the IQ of a pigeon --Fightloungemike (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That, in fact, is not obvious at all. I'm not even aware that there are IQ tests for pigeons. Fightloungemike, any more personal attacks and you will be blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I did a Google search I got 10 hits--that's less than my 90 year old grandmother and she makes no claims of notability. While it's true that ghits can't be a determining factor, the fact that an on-line MMA site's award has so few ghits I think is significant. Since the only sources seem to be the backers of the award (according to the article) and its recipients, it certainly seems to fail WP:N and WP:V. There's also no evidence to support Bigzmma's claim that there was lots of coverage when the award was given. Otherwise, what happened to all of that reporting? Mdtemp (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Fails WP:V, never mind WP:GNG. No reliable sources proffered other than the primary source of this outfit's own website. Serious WP:COI issues, in that the creator is associated with said website, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality isn't helping. Why, look, there's even a meatpuppet army. (And good question there, Mdtemp. We're not talking awards given out a generation ago or a century ago. We're talking awards purportedly handed out last year. The reporting just doesn't "go away," and it's far simpler to imagine that it just never existed in the first place. Of course, the Keep proponents can prove us wrong, if they wish. Ravenswing 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
over 40,000 people in the UK voted on the awards, and it featured on many sites (especially ones who were nominated). How do I know you aren't part of a "meathead army" voting to delete. Please show proof of you not being part of one. You have lied about me once today, I will take it that you will lie again--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you would do good to assume good faith here WP:AGF. Lots of people know Ravenswing and respect his opinions whether or not they agree with what he says. Just last week he (gently and politely) let me know I needed to shut up. I was smart enough to see that he was correct, even though I had plenty more to say. Even if he was mistaken (it happens, we are all human), you would do good to raise the issue somewhere else, like his talk page, and be just as polite as you would want him to be. Assuming good faith means just that, assuming that even when someone is wrong, they had good intentions, and they aren't just out to get you. You've had a rough day as it is. You seem to know quite a bit about MMA, and it would be swell to have you around here, but you won't last long if you don't learn to be more respectful of others. Wikipedia isn't anarchy, or a forum, or a democracy, and there is no "right" to be an editor here. BTW, saying "40,000 people...blah blah blah" just gets experienced editors to laugh or ignore you. WP:BIG explains why. The closing admin will ignore it automatically, so you wasted your time in saying it, and in the end, made yourself look ignorant of the guidelines in the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I couldn't care less if he is respected in a virtual world. That's like saying you have to respect so and so as he has a sacred goblet in World of Warcraft. You saying I won't last long if I don't be respectful of others - I will be if others like yourself respect me and my reasons on why certain pages should be on wikipedia--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the position of someone who nearly was blocked at ANI earlier today, and was warned a few hours ago that your next personal attack would be your last, is this the hill you really want to die on, FLM? You know, it's funny, for someone who is as knowledgeable about MMA as you have repeatedly claimed to be. MMA bouts have strict rules and regulations, and repeated failure to follow them will not only get a fighter disqualified, but endanger future bookings in a fed. Very short shrift (if any at all) would be given to a fighter who whined that the rules weren't fair or that he was too good or knowledgeable to have to follow them. There is a lesson to be learned in this. Ravenswing 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet - striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... isn't it the case that almost all of your edits since July of last year have been to MMA-related AfDs? WP:BOOMERANG, here. Ravenswing 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NoteI put up some excellent points on this but they have since been deleted by Ravenswing - this is unfair as it will judge the overall decision--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What I removed were personal attacks and nothing but personal attacks, save for Dennis Brown's response to them. Nothing in them had any bearing on the notability of the subject or upon any policies or guidelines under discussion in this AfD. Ravenswing 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROMOTION. Encourage transwiki to Edge MMA wiki. What's it about these MMA deletion procedures and rife socking? Just because the sport encourages battles, must supporters see this encyclopedia as a BATTLEGROUND? If these are merely sourcing issues, why can't some of these supporters pull some print sources out of magazines and apply them? BusterD (talk) 10:50, 18 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.