Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:18, 12 June 2021

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 all. Consensus is weak on the main article, with many participants not giving an opinion on it. I'm happy to userfy the main article on request. lifebaka++ 00:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Challenge MMA

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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 appears to be a non-notable MMA organization. It lacks top ranked fighters and the article has no reliable independent sources to support notability. A query on the MMA talk page produced no support for notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these events are not notable. They fail WP:EVENT. In fact, many of them haven't even happened yet.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion on main article, merge/delete the events I don't know enough about MMA to be able to judge the notability of the organization, but the events ought to simply be listed in the main article if it survives. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This company has been active since late 2008, it followed up after the Cage Rage promotion stopped promoting events under its name, where the part owners of Cage Rage created UCMMA to keep running MMA. there are many sources out on the internet that can prove UCMMA is fully active, their website - http://www.cagerageuk.com/ can prove all of the events that have articles on this page have happened and the ones that haven't are to be all shown by December 3, 2011. The UFC has way more events that haven't happen yet on Wikipedia than any other MMA company has right now. Besides, this page has existed way before I decided to update it frequently, and back then all it said was what events are coming up, what events have happened, who is the champion in each division and notable fighters from the company. For it to be removed now would slow down the progress made already. If deleted, I will simply put them back online within hours of them being removed. Just because there are not as many references about each topic on this page as, say, BAMMA or the UFC doesn't mean to say it is not reliable. If completely necessary, I will take it upon myself to add a few more article references to all pages in question to prove that what is being said on each page is true and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The events are clearly not notable (see WP:MMANOT and WP:EVENT). If some independent sources giving significant coverage can be found for the organization, that would be fine. Right now the organization appears less significant than BAMMA and that's considered a second tier organization. Most importantly, UCMMA lacks top fighters. The fact that a fighter (Nick Chapman) with a grand total of 2 MMA fights is fighting for their light heavyweight title underscores that. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BigzMMA stripped the AfD notices off of these pages, which I have restored. Editors should watch to make sure that those changes do not get reverted. I'll assume good faith and reason that the editor was only trying to "save" favored pages and did not know that this disruptive maneuver would not halt this AfD discussion. That doesn't mean that editors shouldn't be vigilant of any future actions taken by this editor. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Do Not Delete~~ First of all, I do not understand why you are so interested as to why you want these pages removed, in the end of the day it is like I said, the main UCMMA Wikipedia page has already existed prior to me making updates for them, and if you were to look more closely at the references you will see that there are independant sources that have covered UCMMA related topic, I just chose to use the most reliable source as the major reference point, the same system used for BAMMA and the UFC. It is also worth pointing out that there are stars in the making in UCMMA, with the likes of Jimi Manuwa who famously rejected a UFC contract because he felt that in this point of his career that he isn't on the same level as the talent with the UFC and wants to grow his skills before accepting an offer. Also up and comers such as champions Cory Tait, John Maguire (who is UFC bound as we speak) and Oli Thompson (again going into the UFC) are part of this organisation. The question about these pages is not about is it even relevant to stay on Wikipedia but is it accurate enough to be consider a real organisation? The answer for that question is yes. Why you ask? Well because this company's every existence is as relevant as Cage Rage's relevance, fighters who have fought in both Cage Rage and UCMMA, such as Alex Reid, Michael Bisping, Anderson Silva, Vitor Belfort, and Ian Freeman, all major names in the world of MMA, and all involved with either or both Cage Rage and UCMMA. For these reasons I question your true motives for wanting this page removed, as it answers all the criteria, for if it didn't I would most likely never of been as interested in UCMMA as I have been, and that your words saying that you lack knowledge of MMA suggest you may not know more than the UFC is the biggest MMA company and you may not even know what the sport is about, what is allowed to be done in a bout etc. I urge the people behind Wikipedia to NOT remove these pages due to baseless motives for this. Beside, the UCMMA page already existed before I began regularly updating it, which means it never has been a problem before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigzMMA. The norm for discussion with other editors on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. You have questioned the motives of the nominator and left a less than cordial message on my talk page. I have nothing against the UCMMA organization, and it may very well people a notable organization in time, but right now it does not appear to be a major player in the global marketplace of mixed martial arts contests. Lots of promotions have signed fighters that are notable enough to have their own pages. The question isn't whether the org employs a few notable fighters, it is whether the organization itself receive coverage by independent sources and passes the other criteria outlined at WP:MMANOT. Drawing comparisons to Cage Rage is more likely to cause other editors to nominate Cage Rage events for deletion next. It doesn't help your case any because people will simply point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finding independent sources is the best way to make a case in a AfD debate if you feel the nomination of these articles was not appropriate. Removing the AfD notices from pages does not help your case any, and could very get get you blocked by admins for interfering with the AfD process. I have nothing against you and see your motivations as well intentioned, so I hope you continue to contribute to wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this AfD debate. Cheers. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Do Not Delete~~ UCMMA is completely the opposite to what you have just described it, it is just as on the front line in the MMA world as is BAMMA today. The people behind Cage Rage/UCMMA holds a talk show once a week, aired on Sky Sports 4, called Cage Fighter. No other MMA company across the country is or has ever done that, and even if they have, it definitely doesn't show/n it on as big of a sports channel as Sky Sports (not including ESPN MMA Live, due to not representing a single MMA organisation). For Cage Rage to be nominated for deletion would also to be questionable, Cage Rage was the most recognised MMA organisation in Europe, with M-1 tailing behind it. The people behind both Cage Rage and UCMMA probably have more recognised fighters fight their promotions than other companies that are no longer trading, such as EliteXC, Palance Fighting Championships, and even Affliction, as well as many current day promotions that are considered notable MMA organisations on Wikipedia. I have now added more references for UCMMA, with as many of them being independant sources as there are from the CageRageUK website. This means that now the organisation does meet criteria supporting notability -

Criteria supporting notability Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

It also meets the Fighter's criteria supporting notability -

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations

so with all this, it means that it would be a mistake to remove all UCMMA related pages, and to ensure that any mistake made can be reversed, I have saved all pages on my computer, with all I need to do is simply copy and paste back in. So now whoever it is that controls whether or not to delete a page can now deny these people the privilege of taking away someone hard work to gain notability of a growing and already well known organisation. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete event pages Despite my contention in an above post that this is not a major organization in terms of global notoriety, it does seem like references exist that support keeping the main org page as others have suggested. With some work, this page could be on par with those for similarly sized promotions. The page currently depends too heavily on non-independent sources, but a few independent ones are already provided. I'm in no rush to see it go. The event pages, on the other hand, do not pass WP:EVENT. What what it's worth, this post was written before I read the one above. It is being posted below because I ran into an edit conflict when trying to save the page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ In the end of the day, it is like I said, all pages follow the MMA Notability requirements, and as for the events page, its just a excuse for you to push for any UCMMA related topics to be removed. Now I thought the idea of Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute towards making pages more accurate. Now simply put, if you don't think what I've written is accurate enough, then instead of calling for it to be deleted, help me keep these pages relevant, notable and reliable. I've been working hard on all of them and for you to get these pages deleted would be a slap across my face, thought I will keep to my word that I will simply put them back up if deleted. By the way, search Cage Rage UK, Ultimate Challenge or UCMMA if you want to find any pages relating to UCMMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the events, weak delete the company I don't see significant independent coverage of the organization. Lots of links to cagerage (not independent) and the rest seem to link to results or notices of upcoming cards. There are no highly ranked fighters. The events clearly do not pass WP:EVENT. Bigzmma, it's not about whether things exist, it's about whether they're notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. I see you've added another event since this discussion started. I've added it to the above list. This isn't personal, it's about following the guidelines and being part of a community. Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ Listen, if you want to find notable information, you really don't have to look very far to find it, I just rather leave them as they are for now, if you want to add them yourself, then simply type in something like 'UCMMA 23 results' on Google, I promise you, you can find many independent sources that will cover the same events results. Also, UCMMA has more notable fighters than, say, ProElite's first event, why don't you start hounding their pages instead?

Also, there is an UCMMA event tonight as some of you are aware, and that I will promise you now, that if you type in 'Cage Rage UK 24 results' tomorrow morning approx. 9:00am (London time) you will find results on the event from independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 12:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigzMMA, please just vote once, not five times. However, you're welcome to make comments as long as this discussion is open. Thank you for the comment you left on my talk page about the value of my opinion. You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. Among them are assuming good faith (WP:AGF), that routine sports/news coverage is not notable (WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT), and the need for significant coverage in independent sources (WP:V). Cagerage is not an independent source because it was run by the same people as UCMMA. I have nothing against UCMMA and I wish it luck, but when I came across the article I didn't see notability. I do agree with you that there are lots of non-notable MMA organizations (well over 100) and events on Wikipedia and that most of the them are not notable, but that falls under another Wikipedia guideline (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case to keep on Wikipedia Well then that means UCMMA falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it seems that even pages even more unreliable and un-notable can remain on Wikipedia so this means UCMMA can. And it is like I keep saying, I cannot be asked adding more notable articles for these page right now, but you are most welcome to do so for me if it means that this discussion can end and UCMMA related pages can remain on Wikpedia. Also, UCMMA 24 is on as we speak, if you wait till morning, you can find articles relating to the event tomorrow morning. Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA

Please don't remove the votes of other editors and vote just once yourself. I see you didn't actually bother to read those guidelines. Instead, you decided to create a bunch of pages on Cage Rage events and unilaterally added UCMMA to the notable MMA organization section at WP:MMANOT, although it says to only do that after gaining consensus at WT:MMA. It's too bad that you don't seem to value any opinions but your own. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-opinionated??First of all talk, I did not remove anyone's votes, second, I'm entitled to show my support to keep these pages. Thirdly, they actually existed before, I managed to track down a Wikipedia account/page I will keep anonymous that actually has those Cage Rage events on, and all I did was simply copied and pasted them onto the official event pages that were randomly deleted of Wikipedia before despite all the other pages relating to Cage Rage seemly passes all these Criteria. Also, if it is a notable event, which it seems everyone that has written on this page has actually agreed to, then I may add it to that WP:MMANOT page. And says the person who'd rather carry on this conversation rather than just end it by helping me add those notable links himself. In the end, you can say I don't value anyone's opinion but at least I got a case for it, and I'm willing enough to make a few of those changes that you all wanted in the first place. By the way, I simply cannot see why anyone would even dare want to create a page on Wikipedia if there are so many guidelines that means that forgetting the smallest criteria standard can mean that everyone will hound you down to remove the page. People like you who seem to spend all day on your computer looking for any page on Wikipedia that does not meet Criteria to keep it on, no matter how small, are actually quite pathetic, people look to Wikipedia for information, not for 'community', the only community I've seen on Wikipedia is the lynch mobs that look to track down any page that does not meet all related criteria. But anyway, if anythings removed, it will go back up. Simple :) BigzMMA 08:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Here are my final comments on this subject--you might want to get your facts correct. The older versions show you did remove Mdtemp's vote, you did add your multiple votes back in after they were crossed out, not "everyone that has written on this page has actually agreed" these events are notable (actually on one has), and things aren't "randomly deleted" on Wikipedia. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get my facts right???/Pages now meet criteria Standards Papaursa I really didn't delete anyone's vote, so you can stop that bulls**t right now, like I said, I can show support in what I'm doing, and you do not have the right to remove my votes, so naturally they are going back up. I said just about everyone, so learn to read before you go there homie :). I didn't just say the events, I mean the actually UCMMA page, it matches all criteria so you can drop that case right now. Your right about one thing though, Wikipedia don't randomly delete things, as people as pathetic as you are the one looking to delete everything you don't know about. If you did look at the Cage Rage events before I reinstated Cage Rage 15-19 back, you would of seen Cage Rage 14 and Cage Rages 20-28 were already on there, untouched and not called upon to be deleted, so why not do yourself a favour, drop this lynching now for this page before I decide to take action against anyone who is still willing to look to delete UCMMA related pages. those who haven't commented since the beginning I will take it that you have accepted that all related pages are within criteria standards, but for anyone not willing drop your case, then expect action made against you :) Oh by the way, I have just added independent sources for those UCMMA events that you claim are unreliable. Enjoy your day now. BigzMMA 07:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) [reply]

Actually, Papaursa is right. Your edit at 21:46 on October 22 did remove Mdtemp's vote and you're not allowed to vote more than once. Also, his claim was that the events were not-notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa and Astudent0 are right. You are not allowed to vote more than once. You may comment as much as you like, but posting "do not delete" multiple times and then not signing your posts will not help you make your case. Please sign your posts by typing four-tildes. Keep in mind that articles are deleted by consensus, just as they are edited by consensus. Re-posting articles that don't survive a deletion debate and threatening editors (i.e., "expect action made against you") will only get you blocked by an admin. I have signed your previous post and restored the strikethroughs for your multiple votes. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and salt - While I don't oppose the userification and/or incubation of the main article, it isn't notable now, and none of the events are notable as well. Given that the article creator has promised to "simply copy and paste back in", salting seems advisable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SInce BigzMMA is serving a temporary ban, several IP addresses have started vandalizing the main article. The links to the articles up for deletion discussion keep getting changed to non-existent pages. I have reported this to WP:ANI. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all clear failure of WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable MMA article. Besides, BigzMMA's aggression violates civil community standards. Will vote Keep when this becomes notable in the future. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2011 (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.

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 :::Papaursa and Astudent0 are right. You are not allowed to vote more than once. You may comment as much as you like, but posting "do not delete" multiple times and then not signing your posts will not help you make your case. Please sign your posts by typing four-tildes. Keep in mind that articles are deleted by consensus, just as they are edited by consensus. Re-posting articles that don't survive a deletion debate and threatening editors (i.e., "expect action made against you") will only get you blocked by an admin. I have signed your previous post and restored the strikethroughs for your multiple votes. [[User:Osubuckeyeguy|Osubuckeyeguy]] ([[User talk:Osubuckeyeguy|talk]]) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
-*'''Delete all, and salt''' - While I don't oppose the userification and/or incubation of the main article, it isn't notable now, and none of the events are notable as well. Given that the article creator has promised to "simply copy and paste back in", salting seems advisable. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 01:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Delete all, and salt''' - While I don't oppose the userification and/or incubation of the main article, it isn't notable now, and none of the events are notable as well. Given that the article creator has promised to "simply copy and paste back in", salting seems advisable. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color:maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' SInce BigzMMA is serving a temporary ban, several IP addresses have started vandalizing the main article.  The links to the articles up for deletion discussion keep getting changed to non-existent pages.  I have reported this to [[WP:ANI]]. [[User:Papaursa|Papaursa]] ([[User talk:Papaursa|talk]]) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Delete all'' clear failure of [[WP:SPORTSEVENT]]. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)