Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 67

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 - this does not prevent it being recreated when reliable information is available. Yomangani^talk 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 67

Contested ProD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom if not sufficiently verifiable or notable.--Jusjih 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Delete - Change nom to delete per discussions below. (Update by Chris Kreider 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)). By far not a UFC fan, but for most of the articles UFC 1 through UFC 66 there is a good amount of content and somebody has put some work into them. Chris Kreider 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment UFC 1 through UFC 66 are not up for deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Thank you for that observation. I did not look at it like that. My reference to that was it appears to be a series that somebody puts alot of work into. The first nomination mentioned notable and I was rebutting that. I still think that it deserves a weak keep.Chris Kreider 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, I didn't mean to seem so curt. My point is that I'm in agreement with you, in so much as I don't think notability of the sports series is an issue here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• keepThis is a major competition in major league of a notable sport. It has been definatively scheduled. The fact that participants have not yet been established is NOT a reason to accuse crystalballing. Super Bowl XLI has not yet had its participants established, yet it is notable. The article in question WILL be improved as soon as the competition is completed. Since it is a real competition, it should be keepable. --Jayron32 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a filthy slum of an article full of speculation and will be pretty much mandated by WP policy to be blank if kept. WP:NOT makes it very clear that events like this one, although nearly guaranteed to happen, still should not get an article until reliable information is available. The date is unconfirmed, the location is unconfirmed, and the participants are unconfirmed. Info was taken from the NSAC, which while they approve events, is no guarantee the event will happen as approved (for instance UFC 65 was approved to be in Las Vegas before it got moved to Sacramento.) Lets make it clear that deletion does not automatically prevent an article from being re-created. hateless 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I am an active participant in the UFC 1 to UFC 66 articles, and I certainly have no problem with UFC events getting their own articles. However, this event is too far off in the future and is a perfect example of the crystal ball. Notability is not the issue, and when the announcement is made, the article should be re-created. hateless 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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.