Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 70

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The result was withdrawn due to the UFC officially announcing this event. VegaDark 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 70

UFC 70 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject is a rumored event that has not been reliably reported on yet. All information about this event that is known and confirmed is generic, it does not deserve (yet) an article per WP:NOT. Prod was removed without reason. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 67. hateless 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, withdrawing nomination per UFC's announcement last night. hateless 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As UFC 70 will apparently "deserve" its own page in a short time (see UFC 1 to 69, to my amazement), is there any point in deleting it now? Presumably the article will "improve" the closer the event becomes, and then reach "perfection" shortly thereafter... UFC 67 was deleted 3 months ahead of the event and the page was recreated (as far as I can tell) less than one week later without being further deleted. In contrast, there'll be 2 months from the end of this discussion until the date given for UFC 70. Bencherlite 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.Julia 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per this statement It is rumoured that Mirko CroCop will fight on main card, along with Tito Ortiz and Forrest Griffin. and WP:CRYSTAL Jeepday 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete lack of references, and it's about an event that hasn't even happened yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the event is closer and there are actual sources, the article can be re-created. --Elonka 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep but strongly oppose some delete votes WP:NOT states that events scheduled to be held soon with some information available about them are an exception to crystal ball rule. The event is notable, scheduled by an authority on the matter, and is in the near future. i kan reed 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Per i kan reed. --Gwern (contribs) 05:43 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not confirmed. When more info is available, then it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 08:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is there supposed to be an article for every single sporting event ever held? After having read a few of the "UFC 1-69" articles, I wouldn't mind getting rid of them all. After Tuli fell to his knees, Gordeau delivered a stunning kick to the face, knocking a tooth out. Gordeau followed with a strike to the face, cutting Tuli. After being checked out by the doctors, the fight was called, with an official time of only 0:30. Smells like fancruft. Icemuon 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My concerns about this vote are expressed in WP:ILIKEIT. The first UFC events (events that caused a political firestorm) and UFC events since 2005 are undeniably notable, and saying the UFCs in between aren't notable enough for an article is like saying the 1924-25 NHL Season isn't notable enough for one. hateless 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not advocating removal of this material because I don't like it. In fact, I happen to be a big fan of boxing, so if you think I'm queasy about the subject matter, that's not it. However, the articles are definitely written in non-encyclopedic POV manner, contain a disproportionate amount of detail, and in total sound like advertisements that came off the main events' site. I'm afraid there's no comparing this to the NHL; I hear about the NHL all the time but I have never heard of the "UFC", and I think I probably speak for the majority of North Americans, at least. Icemuon 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article has no sources therefore failing WP:V and just seems to be trivial, failing WP:NOT#INFO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "trivia" isn't covered (yet) under WP:NOT#IINFO - that section is quite specific about the types of information it deals with. Dugwiki 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all UFC xx articles into one main article. The UFC events might be notable enough for an article, but not notable enough for individual articles. The inevitable repetition of individual articles is also non-encyclopedic. —gorgan_almighty 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That will be one insanely large article. This does not seem to be a practical solution at all, not to mention a bit off-topic. hateless 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a merge isn't a bad idea. No doubt we won't get a delete consensus on all the articles, but also it's a bit ridiculous to have an article detailing each happening of every single event. It would take a lot of trimming and not all the information of each article would be kept in the merged article. This is on topic, since why should this article be deleted if all the others are kept? This is as good a place to discuss it as any. Icemuon 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. This would not be an insanely long article, as all the repetition would be removed, and each article's contribution could be trimmed down to one row in a table, detailing the winners of each event. This would not only be neater and more encyclopedic, it would also be a far better way to present the data in the first place. —gorgan_almighty 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete While the UFC has announced an event in Manchester [1] few details are known about it. The article doesn't even say if the event will be called UFC 70. Lewis 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Now that we have a fight confirmed by the fighter. Lewis 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Keep all of the UFC articles into one larger one. That way there isn't hundreds of them floating around Wikipedia someday. On second thought, we have an article for every Super Bowl, and after looking over the other articles making a list out of them would become huge. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a big difference between the Super Bowl and the UFC. It would not be huge, but would instead be neater and more encyclopedic. See my earlier posts on the matter. —gorgan_almighty 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pending references The subject itself will probably be notable, so odds are an article of some sort about the event will eventually be kept. But this particular article is entirely unreferenced and unverified. Delete unless it can be more properly referenced, and if deleted hold off on recreating until proper sources are available. FYI, I do not recommend merging otherwise properly referenced articles about individual pay-per-view events into a single article; that is not consistent with similar pay per views, such as Professional Wrestling pay per views. Dugwiki 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete , only because there are no references to indicate that the event will definetly take place; although I can imagine this being re-created when sources do arise. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With a source now reporting a schedule bout I don't think it should be deleted now. Thesaddestday 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Now that it's been announced on the UFC home page I think this is a pretty cut and dry keep. VegaDark 09:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I tried to find out some information about this through a Lexis-Nexis news search. Only found a passing mention in two Canadian Press articles, but no details about it. I don't think there are enough good sources for this, at least not yet. --Aude (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2007 (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.