Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Notability of MMA Events

Due to the large volume of UFC articles that have been proposed for deletion I think it is time that we discuss what makes a mixed martial arts event notable. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142 a set of guidelines outlining notability would be ideal in order to promote a consistant guidelines for AfDs. There are a few questions that need to be addressed immediately:

• Are UFC events inherently notable?
• Are top tier MMA organization events per WP:MMANOT inherently notable?
• What would make any MMA event notable?

I have a set of criteria I would like to see introduced. I want to see Wikipedia contain comprehensive and consistent coverage for the events that have lasting significance for the sport; sometimes, that effect is hard to see in the short term. Fortunately the UFC already has a method of sorting it's events; currently there are four types: numbered UFC events, UFC events on FOX, UFC events on FX and UFC events on FUEL TV. Immediately, A simple way to have consistent coverage of the most important events (as decided by the UFC) would be to grant all numbered UFC events notability. An argument against this would be to say 'just because the UFC says it's important doesn't make it notable'. This argument makes an assumption that is false, that the UFC has complete control on numbered events. It is actually the consumer, who purchases MMA events via pay-per-view, that decides that notability. Recently the UFC had a proposed numbered event in Montreal that had to be cancelled. Why? Because they could not find large enough fights to merit the notability of a numbered event. By making all numbered UFC events notable we can allow a Wikipedia viewer to browse through the events with an appealing consistency. Another way to confirm notability would be for an event to have a title fight. These fights represent a contest to decide the top fighter in their respective organizations, and have lasting historic effects for the sport and the company. Obviously, all organizations are not created equal, therefore it would be fair to grant notability to title fights in top tier organizations as per WP:MMANOT. A final objective way to determine notability would be for an event to contain a certain number of top ranked fighters. A discussion is required in order to decide what source(s) could establish top ranked fighters. ESPN is a good source because they poll different reporters, for the same reason SB Nations MMA rankings are also favorable due to their large number of sources (including reporters, websites and public opinion). The number of top ranked fighters that an event needs to be notable is difficult to pin down. For these initial guidelines I will arbitrarily say four top-ranked fighters will need to be involved in an event to establish notability. This number and the method of determining a definition for 'top-ranked' will need to be discussed. In sum, my advised guidelines for notability of MMA events are:

1. Any numbered UFC event
2. Any event for a top tier organization that contains a title fight
3. Any event that contains four top ranked fighters (discussion needed)

--Pat ^talk 16:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

USA Today/SB Nation Rankings would be a good toll to use http://www.bloodyelbow.com/rankings Fraggy1 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Before we get into the exact wording we need some examples of events which pass the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE test and then demonstrate that what ever set of words are framed they reflect reality otherwise the community won't accept this as a creditable guideline. Mtking ^(edits) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that you have been the main voice against MMA events notability. This discussion is an attempt to clarify exactly what the community deems as notable. I would really appreciate your input on the questions I put forward, as well as the notability guidelines I have outlined. The AfD results are asking for a specific definition of MMA event notability and I find putting forward more AfDs extremely useless (due to the circular nature of this method). However I would like to ask, respectfully, for you to try not to monopolize this conversation. --Pat ^talk 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good on ya both. This looks like progress. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is the real bugger. Details of what happened during the event do continue to be discussed, even though the event as a whole does not. Does that satisfy the guideline? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Going back to Pat's guidelines:

1. Any numbered UFC event These are broadcast all over the world by media companies such as ESPN (UK and Ireland), Rede Globo (Brazil), Rogers Sportsnet (Canada), Sky Italia (Italy), Fox Latin America I could go and they should be included.

2. Any event for a top tier organization that contains a title fight I think this should be limited to Zuffa owneed promotions due to the fact the vast majority of top fighters are under ex clusive with either the UFC or Strikeforce

'3. Any event that contains four top ranked fighters I think any four top 25 ranked fighters in the USA today poll would be a good enough indication of event notabilty. The USA today poll includes ESPN, Sherdog and a number of top MMA journalists and is the closets thing MMA has to rankings. Fraggy1 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to Pat's guidelines too: Perfect. I would support that. But, Mtking makes a good point. Considering such articles may still conflict with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and other guidelines, would community consensus be hard to achieve? The three groups you suggest would become exceptions to the guidelines. Wouldn't we have to show why? Next, international curling events could want the same. We need convincing rationale. Am I on the right track with my thinking here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP directly conflicts with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I would rather we tried to come up with a standard specific to MMA, as opposed to focusing on established rules. This may seem like I'm trying to avoid the rules, but it's more a case that the rules don't apply. For instance WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't apply to an MMA event because it's not a game or series, and WP:NSEASONS doesn't apply because an event is not a season. We are left to use WP:EVENT which leaves much to be desired in order to have a clear definition of notoriety for specific MMA events. --Pat ^talk 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Next, international curling events could want the same." Actually, International World Curling Championships do have their own unique pages, for Men's, Women's, and Mixed Doubles. In fact so do some of the more recent national championships for the U.S., Canada, and even Scotland. The 2012 Scottish Women's Curling Championship has less prose and more statistical information than almost any major MMA event page. Yes, that's still far fewer annual pages than the UFC, Strikeforce, and Bellator produce, but Curling is a sport a very tiny fraction the size of Mixed Martial Arts and gets zero mainstream press attention whatsoever outside of the Olympics, yet they are better represented in proportion to their fanbase than the top three MMA promotions are when it comes to annual Curling Championships versus major MMA-event pages. In fact, damn near all the arguments applied to MMA could be magnified many times over against wikipedia's representation of Curling. So that isn't an issue. At least, not until someone decides to try and get all the curling articles deleted. Beansy (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Being less lazy with what sources we use would help less MMA Junkie more USA today, ESPN, SI, TSN, etc Fraggy1 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

MMAJunkie, MMAFighting, and Sherdog all are much better, faster, and more comprehensive news sources for MMA than ESPN, SI, or TSN (Sherdog more for lesser events). In fact I believe Sherdog is CBS's official partner for sporting news and MMAFighting.com's Ariel Helwani has Fox Sports credentials now, among other MMA reporters who do so, but he still breaks far more news in interviews that appear on MMAFighting. What's more, USA Today, while it does have one MMA staff reporter, farms out its MMA meta-rankings to SBNation (USA Today's Sergio Non is one of about a dozen contributors to the monthly meta-rankings). There are lots of not-so-great MMA-specific news sources out there and lots of cut-and-paste sites too, but there are also some very well known MMA and very well respected MMA sites there. MixedMartialArts.com for instance, while importing most of its reported news from elsewhere (while giving credit), has news that pops up from its own forums, as posters who are verified MMA fighter and other MMA industry figures regularly post there, including Dana White himself. Really, there's nothing wrong with those sources. Sure, I regularly see completely banal op-eds, but as for the actual reporting and the factual accuracy, the leading MMA sites tend to be better sources than places like the Washington Post (and it pains me to say that since that was the newspaper I grew up on), where you might have a boxing writer who is only semi-knowledgeable about MMA doing occasional and less-than-comprehensive write-ups because he's ordered to instead of because he's a fan of the sport. I suppose more Associated Press articles as sources might be helpful though I guess...Beansy (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This could turn into a major push to hammer out some MMA guidelines. It's also on a pretty hidden page. Should we do something about that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC) And maybe we should consult some editors who are really, really experienced with policy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fraggy1, the use of less MMA centric sources is a very good idea. I don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE conflicting with WP:NTEMP, if your read them in conjunction with WP:ROUTINE. What is often overlooked is that just because every newspaper or website publishes an article on some event be it a crime, a party or in this case a sports result, it does not mean that is notable as a result of it being a news story of interest. Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although Beansy is correct in his assertion that a lot of the time MMAjunkie and MMAFighting are more reliable then mainstream coverage, both Mtking and Fraggy1 are correct in their assessment that more mainstream references are required. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NTEMP do contradict, as mentioned in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I suppose I'll quote it... "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." --Pat ^talk 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what we see here a burst or coverage in the MMA media following the announcement of the event then reporting on further card additions followed by a spike of coverage in mainstream media reporting the results then it drops to nothing. Mtking ^(edits) 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

True. And Pat does point out that "...coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established...", which somewhat mitigates it. So, can we add other considerations, including guidelines such as WP:GEOSCOPE that further mitigate WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and make a select group of top MMA events notable? Let's compromise here a bit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we deal with the issue that a lot of that coverage is just Wikipedia:ROUTINE in it's nature, reports on who is and who is not going to fight, much like the reports on who is and is not fit to be picked for a sports team for a match ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Routine says "Routine events such as sports matches" are not notable. A single UFC event has anywhere between nine and twelve single matches. In this regard, it is much more like a wrestling event than a single sports match. If wrestling events are notable, UFC events ought to be notable as well. Dominic (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC events are notable, watched by millions and is covered by mainstream media outlets. Who cares if the event doesnt have a long-lasting effect on society. This isnt the moon landing, its a sports event. It becomes a part of history, just like everything else. Portillo (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a unique case, and that should be a consideration, as Pat points out. As it's sort of an event and a sport at once, we mustn't be too rigid in observing guidelines -- guidelines which offer flexibility with terms like "probably" and "likely". Flexibility can win the day here. The whole MMA Wikiproject has a lot to gain if we can compromise a bit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because as an encyclopaedia we have rules, guidelines and policies on what information is deemed of encyclopaedic worth, for example WP:NOT and the subsection WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. Mtking ^(edits) 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(This is cross-posted from the UFC 146 AfD with some modifications.) Comment I hesitate to comment but I hope the "keepers" will take this as constructive suggestions and insight into the "deletionists" mentality. "Articles about notable [sporting events] should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Currently, most MMA event articles appear to contain only "routine news coverage of such things as [fight] announcements [and] sporting [results]". If MMA event articles (UFC or otherwise) included more prose discussing the significance of the event, the background of bouts and the fighters involved in them, what happened during the bouts, and any after effects of the event then "deletionists" will have less to argue from. As concrete examples of what I'm referring to look at UFC 94 and UFC 140 as articles that contain significant amounts of well-sourced prose that discuss all aspects of the event. If a particular event is notable, the article should explain why it is notable and nearly all MMA event articles fail to do so. If the significant issues about an event were discussed for more than a single sentence, it adds weight to outsiders (non-MMA viewing folks) that these may really be notable articles and will help support the "keepers" case during AfD. So the most important thing that should be done, in my opinion, is not constructing notability criteria for MMA events, but to actually improve the MMA event articles so that they are more likely to meet the existing guidelines and notability criteria. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that MMA events require better sources and more information. I'm simply trying to put forward specific criteria to help create consistency. I fear that TreyGeek and Mtking care more about removing articles than improving them. This mentality, along with a lack of specific guidelines, has led us into a position where major PPV events, with huge ramifications for the sport, are now up for deletion. I think we need to work together to try to improve Wikipedia, as opposed to grouping people as 'deleters' or 'keepers'. --Pat ^talk 03:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

With the work I put into writing up UFC 140 and what I could on the early background of UFC 147 in addition to writing up the initial version of 2012 in UFC events, 2012 in mixed martial arts events, and 2012 in Super Fight League I take offense to the suggestion that I don't care (or didn't care) about improving MMA event articles. Thanks for reminding me why I'm wanting to retire from the MMA WikiProject. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was completely wrong in that assertion. I hope you'll forgive me. I know you are actively working towards making pages better, as evident with the amount of time you put into the '2012 in UFC events' page. I was attempting to refer to each individual AfD that has come up, and apparent lack of effort by everyone (myself included) to include better references and provide more information. I'm trying to simply change the way we are approaching these pages. I was wrong to say that you don't care about improving the articles. I'm sorry. --Pat ^talk 03:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry if this is a little out of place as while most of this was written, two more nested exchanges above it were posted). Regarding User:TreyGeek's assertion on what would make for weightier MMA event articles, that seems to almost directly contradict WPNOTTHENEWSPAPER. And every major MMA event where things haven't gone perfectly (which is to say most of them) has had prose in a "Background" section. Could some of these be more fleshed out? Sure. But the actual match info is exactly what you would not find in a newspaper, ironically. Ever read an AP article about a UFC event? They don't even usually give a complete list of who was on the card, let alone full match results with times, rounds, method of victory, whether a competitor missed weight and by how much, whether they tested positive for a steroid test, or SAC-disclosed salaries. They have a very basic recap. This is where wikipedia comes in.

Wikipedia is a fabulous source of MMA nuts and bolts information in addition to prose on the background info, which is exactly what so many people come here for. Or at least it was. If full background information on certain events haven't been fleshed out, I would think the appropriate response solution would be to put a tag on the article requesting that. It kind of seems like you and Mtking aren't even quite on the same page though. One of you managed to ask about extremely important events "how is this at all notable?" while the other seems to be more concerned with a formatting change, albeit risking the deletion of a tremendous amount of information in the process.

Also, about this: "If the significant issues about an event were discussed for more than a single sentence, it adds weight to outsiders (non-MMA viewing folks) that these may really be notable articles and will help support the "keepers" case during AfD." if it were not for the two of you, this wouldn't even be coming up at all. Furthermore, yeah, most recent UFC events have something or other of major significance. UFC 145 had the complete ascendance of Jon Jones as a phenomenal champion bringing stabilization to one of the two most popular weight divisions for the first time in years, only so see his popularity among fans plummet, despite all UFC efforts to try and make him a cross-over star. UFC 144 had tons of ramifications by bringing major attention back to MMA not only in Japan, but also in Korea with Benson Henderson capturing the LW world title. 146 has the complete self-destruction of Alistair Overeem just before he would have unified the Pride, Dream, and WAMMA linear titles into the UFC title, in a match between the only two remaining elite HWs with no losses in the last several years, in a match that was supposed to finally answer the question of who the toughest person on the planet is, on top of an experimental main card that had (and still has) all matches taking place in the Heavyweight division. UFC 143 had an Interim Welterweight Title fight between Carlos Condit and Nick Diaz, the latter of whom was the first Welterweight in years to be considered a serious threat to Georges St. Pierre, only to have him lose the decision, announce his "retirement" in frustration, then test positive for marijuana, leading to the Nevada State Athletic Commission announcing that therapeutic exemptions for medical marijuana would technically be allowable under the current framework, something no one in all of MMA or boxing ever thought to look into apparently. These are all really more suited to literary accounts in my opinion, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. I could go on. I just don't think a lot of this stuff is necessarily what an encyclopedia is for, which is to be a dispassionate repository of unbiased information (exactly what MMA fans are looking for by the way). And if it is, then I really think adding a tag requesting more event background information or prose on the significance of the event itself would be a superior solution. Beansy (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point TreyGeek: ("...If ...more prose discussing the significance of the event...then "deletionists" will have less to argue from...") But let's do both. Some MMA-specific guideline that is somewhat less stringent is vital. If you accept no compromise, then this whole mess will continue indefinitely. About the prose: I asked Mtking a question about this, and would like both of your input, as you two know the scoop. Please see the preamble to the PLAN. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I can agree that some of the smaller shows like Fight Nights are not as notable and perhaps could be in one article. But most of the pay per view shows are clearly notable and have enough reliable sources. Portillo (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just having reliable sources is not enough to demonstrate enduring notability, if, as is the case those reliable sources are routine reposts on newsworthy sports events they don't demonstrate enduring notability. By way of an example have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game I assure you that game had far more reliable sources, far bigger viewership than these MMA events, but because those sources failed to show what the enduring significance the event had it was deleted. Another example this time outside the sports world in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India, again coverage by the container full, in the lead up to and during the event across the whole globe, the US, India, the EU and here in Aus, but with no enduring significance the article was deleted (and if memory servers me re-created and deleted again), I will again quote WP:NOT when it says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. so to retain these articles first we need to find sources that to that. Mtking ^(edits) 06:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While going to great lengths to destroy a resource that has been working perfectly well does make me question your motivation (I can cherry pick a million counter examples too if you like), I'd just like to point out that a home video release alone making individual UFC events a DVD you can purchase on Amazon.com is enough to be considered inherently notable under WP:GNG, which in turn should eliminate all UFC numbered events and select non-numbered events from this discussion entirely. Beyond that, really, this was a broadly established and very popular wiki-project that would have easily fell under WP:IAR guidelines ("Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" or at least not supposed to be) to the same degree a million other pages do, and I don't think a couple of people crusading for deletion should negate that. So I seriously think if we're going to discuss this at all, discussion should be narrowed at this point with all UFC PPVs and any other home video released UFC events removed from deletion considertion. On the flip side, if someone wants to compress KSW, BAMMA, or similarly tiered promotions into omnibuses I don't think you'd find much opposition, but it should be up to someone actually familiar with the subject to make the distinction of what is a lower-tiered league. For instance, Strikeforce Challenger shows have included at least one legitimate World Title match (the inaugural Women's Bantamweight World Title match, a title currently held by one of the two most popular women in the history of the sport, Ronda Rousey, who single-handedly may have saved Women's MMA from extinction on the highest level) and now half of those pages are gone without a replacement. Also I'd appreciate it if you didn't just make a partial response to this as I believe I stated two independent arguments for why either this entire thing is unnecessary or why approximately 140 UFC events should automatically be disqualified from deletion consideration.Beansy (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to cut to the chase here. I am seeing the same debate as before. TreyGeek, Mtking and others: are you willing to bend at all? If so, what compromise would be acceptable to you in a new MMA event guideline? Let's stop trying to sell each other our points of view. We all know existing guidelines by now. Let's propose some guidelines we can live with. Then we will know quickly if this will end in an impasse. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I am willing to agree to something along the lines of Pat walls1's proposal above providing it's backed up with evidence that the sources demonstrate that it reflects reality. SNG's are meant to help provide a short cut to show when something meets our inclusion policy, so for example WP:NBOX is a simple check list that says a person is presumed to meet the notability requirements if they meet one of the criteria on the list, this is because in order to accomplished such a feet you will have gotten the coverage of the type required to pass the inclusion policy. So what ever we propose as a guideline has to come with a rational and with examples thatshow it is a good short cut otherwise any guideline won't be accepted by the wider wiki community. Mtking ^(edits) 07:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the wider unaccepting wiki community seems to be mostly you and Trey at this point. Care to explain who exactly you feel you are representing? Beyond that though, I would consider the USA-Today/SBNation meta-rankings to be the gold standard for rankings, and is the only ones with multiple blessings from any "mainstream" publications that you all value so much. However this applies to people not events. Again, almost all UFC PPVs, much like WWE PPVs, have been available for individual home video release at some time or another (a few of the ones from "the dark ages" prior to the Unified Rules that made it a legitimate sport and after it was banned in most states have only been available as part of box sets). Any such event would qualify under WP:GNG I believe. You still haven't addressed why WP:IAR. Consider this quote: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored." No one in the MMA community had a strong objection to the Wikipedia articles' existence beyond apparently TreyGeek before you started this campaign. The minutiae points you've offered from the "enduring notability" clause is quite commonly trumped in any number of ways by the popularity of these pages, their uniform format, the numerous custom templates specifically made for MMA, the fact that these pages have existed for years uninterrupted, and similar examples of such pages from other sports and similar industries like the very PPV-based professional wrestling (there are literally hundreds of individual PPV-event pages for the WWE, WCW, and other promotions), per the general WP:IAR policy that this is an encyclopedia and thus a repository of information. There was a very-well established and in fact codified presentation of this material already in place, allowing the pages to do their job (i.e. give pertinent information that people were seeking; there's even been spats about how the match tables should be uniformly presented in biographies, but that is to this as a skirmish is to obliteration). You could delete most of Wikipedia if you wanted to use the first four pillars to the letter the way you are doing. Beansy (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mtking is talking of compromise: Yay!

Beansy: You're still pitching. And, comments like "...Care to explain who exactly you feel you are representing..." can make others defensive, and that's never good while negotiating. And, the length of your posts risk WP:TLDR.

But, we, my friends, are getting closer. We all know all the relevant guidelines and rationales by now. So, how about we lay down a draft of WP:MMAOKAYICANLIVEWITHTHAT, then bitch, haggle, and couter-offer our way to something all can accept? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what, fair enough? But we still seem very far apart. However I suppose I can live with Pat's criteria on a card as a standard for notability for events. I suppose it is acceptable for recent events. I would consider Bellator's 115 lbs. Women's Title to also be a legitimate world championship but it's a moot point due to Bellator's already omnibused articles. I also second the recommendation of using the USA-Today SBNation rankings locatated at BloodyElbow.com/rankings. However, those only archive back to about 2009? at the moment I think. Meanwhile modern MMA has been around for 19 years now. That is actually a huge problem. However, since the currently targeted articles are the most recent ones for some reason anyway, I suppose we can start there. I have a number of suggestions on how to determine whether a fighter was "important" enough or not to validate an older MMA event in the same manner, but I'll hold off on that for now.

As for "Of course, I am willing to agree to something along the lines of Pat walls1's proposal above providing it's backed up with evidence that the sources demonstrate that it reflects reality." I'm a little confused here by what you, Mtking, mean by "reflect reality," because that can be interpreted a number of different ways semantically. Are you talking about the sources? Would UFC.com's own event results be considered acceptable for? How about the Sherdog database for non-UFC events? Alternately are you questioning a choice of ranking sites? If you could please elaborate on that comment, that would be great. Beansy (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job. We seem to be heading into Bargainsville. Beansy: We don't know how far apart we are till we lay down the proposals and haggle. I'm pretty useless with evaluating MMA other than UFC, so you folks can hash that out.

I gather Mtking et al. will rightly object to Pat's 123 unless some conditions are included. Maybe it could read something like:

"All numbered UFC events are considered notable provided that they contain...and are...and blah blah blah..."

So, what "..."s do we want, and what can we forego? How about:

• ...do not necessarily need to have continued coverage beyond....
• ...should contain substantial content in prose form...
• etc etc.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Observation I have concerns about declaring all numbered events as automatically notable, although I understand the logic behind it. UFC 149 is one of the better examples with two separate AFDs that both resolved as merge [1] and [2]. While we can add clarity to the notability guidelines here, we have to be careful not to try and redefine them, and WP:GNG still has to be met. I do think this is a great place and time to start this discussion, and thrilled at the overall tone here. I would clarify for Beansy that TreyGeek and Mtking weren't alone in their perspectives: DGG, Beeblebrox and myself agreed with them, and others as well. Of course, we still need to find a working compromise and it will take a while, but everyone seems to be onboard with the idea of working together. One of the problems with establishing notability in the past has been sources. I'm still of the belief that websites like sherdog are great for sourcing facts, but not for establishing notability because they aren't independent enough. Of course they will cover every event. Obviously when ESPN or Sports Illustrated covers an event, that is clearly independent and establishes notability, as their scope is broader than one sport, and addresses the continuing impact issue for me. It may be difficult or impossible to create any hard and fast rule without considering each article on the merits of its individual impact, as documented by these independent and reliable sources. But I'm certainly open to any ideas that can add clarity to the guidelines here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Beansy: As a editor who's dabbled in the MMA project space from time to time I have a few points

1. Stop picking individual statements to attack. It's still an attack.
2. By "reflect reality", I assume Mtking was paraphrasing "A uninvolved user with no special devotion to MMA topics could draw the same conclusions from the provided neutral reliable sources".
3. A significant problem that we (collectively all of WP editors) is that rabidly fanatical supporters of MMA come in and argue that "black is white, up is down, every MMA event (even backyard exhibitions) should be included". Granted the example is extreme, but it demonstrates how several editors are under a siege of new event articles that are very poorly cited and written.
4. UFC.com's own event results/Sherdog's event results are good for stats of the event, but we need some prose around the stats to make it the article more than a stats reporting.
5. Finally, posts on various MMA interest sites (and posts on the MMA sub-reddit) inciting fans to come in and express blind faith keeps (or opposition to trying to tidy up the article space) is counter productive and only leads to further siege mentality. If you wanted to help out Wikipedia, go to the external communities to educate them how to go about expressing a policy based argument or suggest that they stop posting calls to arms.

I hope these points will help you, and others in the MMA space see what experienced editors see when looking at the discussions Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1) Not sure which you are referring to. Attacking points is part of debating. Different from attacking people. I suppose I didn't entirely separate the two when I was asking whose interests Mtking felt he was representing, which was probably a bit over the line. Obviously I'm still curious about most of the people's motivations here aside from TreyGeek (who appears to genuinely feel different formatting would be better). I'm okay putting aside all that for hammering out some sort of compromise.

2) Maybe but I really don't think lack of sourcing has been a particular problem with these articles. For instance, if you look at the sources for a specific Chess Championship that wasn't one of the very few that made international headlines and almost all the sources are going to be chess magazines, newsletters, or websites.

3) I've not been involved in this for long but that really sounds like an extreme overstatement. The _lesser_ promotions I've seen targeted included things like Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW), which I would consider the top promotion in at least Eastern Europe if not all of it. Some of these events have gotten over 10 million viewers on television. I'm still fine for omnibussing that one but it's hardly a backyard exhibition.

4) It's not that I completely have a problem with that, but most other sports are not held to that standard (do you really want me to list them? I'm being 100% literal when I'm saying Curling gets off easier; shall I give direct examples?), there generally is some background prose in any given UFC article at lesat, and the actual implications aren't always concrete and not really encyclopedia material. Was the winner of the main event on UFC on FX: Melvin vs. Guillard guaranteed a spot in a LW title eliminator? Most MMA fans seem to think so, but no one actually knows this. Jim Miller does seem to be in a #1 Contender match though against Nate Diaz and is headlining the next show on Fox. Maybe an "Aftermath" section in some of these articles or something would help. Where applicable.

5) I believe I've made a single comment post in a thread-reply to someone else's blog post on this subject, and asked people to not be idiots, not use ad-hominem attacks, and study the wikipedia guidelines. As for a "siege mentality," if you really want to be the (morally) better side you need to be willing to ignore the idiots making crude attacks (sometimes idiots like me) and look at the larger picture and not judge this entire fandom as "the enemy," if you feel you are under siege. Beansy (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur: Good points. Would still like Mtking to talk about "reflect reality". A lot of what you said could be solved if we can invite the MMA community to become Wikipedians per THE PLAN. They could not only expand and source, but protect integrity too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Dennis Brown! I don't think we even need a "hard and fast rule". If we throw in a few "likely"s and "substantial"s, that should work, right? (Ever notice that the guidelines are loaded with weasel words?)

I like the varied sources condition. That's probably agreeable, and necessary. If we could bend on the WP:PERSISTENCE a bit as a compromise, that would be good, considering the fights within the events do continue to be discussed anyway.

Two key components to keep at the forefront, I think:

• Identifying specific events, (Pat's 123 sounds good), which are subject to the more lenient conditions of this prospective guideline. And, others, which are either not, or are subject other conditions yet to be discussed.

• Trying to get a list of which existing guidelines can be compromised on, and which cannot. Then we can haggle better to find something that the community will approve of. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• From my experience, Persistence is a non-issue if the sourcing is strong enough (clearly not focused only on MMA events). When the sourcing is only dedicated MMA websites, it is a legitimate concern. This is kind of like a couple of overlapping concerns, I just have focused on the GNG side of this coin because I think it is easier to be objective about if everyone agrees 1. what is independent enough to establish notability. vs. 2. what is reliable enough to source "facts". I think we all agree on point 2, and feel that if we can focus on point 1, that might make a few things fall into place. What is "independent" or not is not as clear as it could be in WP:RS, which is why it would be appropriate for us to clarify here. And again, a site can be reliable without being independent, I can't stress that enough. Primary sites are just one example. My current perspective is this: If the only sources available for an event are from websites that are exclusively MMA related, then it doesn't pass WP:GNG. If it also has sources from other reliable publications that are more removed (cover other sports or topics) and the coverage is significant, then it is likely notable. Some of the UFC events get outside coverage, some don't, meaning that the independent publications themselves have already decided if the event was notable or not by their choice to cover them or not. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 13:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody good news indeed!

1. MMA, and in particular UFC is international. So, there must be bags of foreign language sources nobody is digging for.

2. If we get editors on board from the MMA community via THE PLAN, then maybe we can make a subpage here listing good sources, even rating their crediblity and arms-length. Something like this maybe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It does seem that foreign sites could be one solution. UFC 144 has mostly USA refs. When I search with http://www.google.com.br/, I see pretty good stuff like [3] and [4]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to be able to completely satisfy every wikipedia guideline but hell that's what WP: IGNOREALLRULES is for I think using reports from the UFC's broadcasters outside the US (ESPN UK, Rede, Rogers etc) should be encouraged as it satisfies WP: GEOSCOPE. Also to avoid situations like UFC 149 occurring again I don't think articles about future events should be created until the card is finalized. We're on the right track here let's not screw it up!! Fraggy1 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the distinct advantages of the omnibus system is that it allows a redirect to be created under the unsourced UFC match, pointing to the proper omnibus article section that contains whatever info exists. This removed the temptation of padding an unsourced article with junk to make it "look" good enough, and greatly reduces the risk of AFD. Eventually, some events will become notable enough to justify their own article, some won't, but you still have a logical system that points to the data for all events. All new events should be placed in the omnibus article first for this very reason. This is the only way to keep event data from from (properly) being deleted because it can't justify a stand alone article. And I'm actually confident we do meet every guideline when we do it this way. Each article that is stand alone still needs to meet WP:GNG, but that is no different than any other article on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the Omnibus article is there is a lot of events 2012 in UFC events is already an unreadable mess and it's only April, there's a very good reason why WWE PPV's aren't done as year by year articles. I agree that the number of MMA event needs to go down KSW, One FC, MFC events do not deserve there own articles and the sparness of there events comapared to UFC shows means an omnibus makes more sense. A UFC event, particularly a numbered or Fox event will contain several fights involving top fighters and sometimes multiple world championship fights. A lot of the problems with UFC articles can be fixed with a greater diversity in sourcing and hard work.Fraggy1 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is why we are here, not to push any idea, but to try something, tweak it, try again, until we have something that fits the basic description of an omnibus system. You can always create a new way (maybe in your sandbox) and show everyone, and if it is better, it would win favor. The omnibus system is new, and by no means have all the bugs been worked out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with the omnibus article is that it only includes results. Individual articles allows payouts, awards, attendance, gate takings, background and other information to be added, which is alot more useful for people who use Wikipedia to search for UFC events.

{{ec}*2 That's not a problem, only a challange. If you had looked at the 2012 in UFC events article, you would have seen a paragraph of prose giving the highlights, an infobox containing gate takings, attendance, buy rate, etc. and a listing of the contenders. It seems fairly clear to me that has all the information you are wanting to include. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm sidetracking a little but shouldn't the Ultimate Finale Articles be merged into the corresponding article as there technically the concluding episodes to a TV series? Fraggy1 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #3

This could sort of be a stage of the MMA notability push, so made it part of the section, and a arb. break was due anyhow.

Should I/we go ahead with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#The statement and invitation to MMA forums? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Anybody care to guess when we might come up with an agreeable guideline? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Give it a week or two. Lots of people don't check in regularly and it is important that there is a clear consensus so we don't repeat efforts. We have good momentum and good participation, we need to make it clear that no one is trying to force this by brute force. Putting a notice on a few pages, like 2012 in UFC events is likely a good idea, and would trust your judgement to decide which others. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it a week or so to start writing the draft? A week or so to decide whether or not an invitation is a good plan? A week or so for this to run its course?

"...Putting a notice on a few pages.." to help with the statement or for this guideline thing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• To first develop a consensus and clarify the guideline here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I may not get chance to respond more until Saturday, when I said above about "reflect reality" Hasteur hit the nail on the head all we have at this time is MMA fans saying they are notable and have lasting significance; well lets start having some cites that demonstrate that, not a single external link has been proffered in this whole debate. When I said about "wiki community" if you really think this is only me and one other go and have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Attention on MMA, any proposal here will have to go through a RfC fully promoted wiki-wide and unless it can be demonstrated to be reasonable and in line with other WP polices it will not garner much support. Mtking ^(edits) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur said "A uninvolved user with no special devotion to MMA topics could draw the same conclusions from the provided neutral reliable sources". That is a fair request and one I believe most major articles already meet, at least when I've actually used them. What you are saying is completely different. You're going back to square one asking about how one establishes notability. That's exactly the guidelines we are trying to hammer out here. What sort of external link are you looking for? I would be intrigued by a correlating example from a kickboxing event, non-Olympic judo tournament, non-Olympic amateur wrestling tournament, sumo tournament, or professional wrestling event (there are more pro-wrestling articles than MMA articles by the way). Beansy (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've been saying this for some time. Before you go to an RfC, you need to have a good idea what it is that you are asking for comments on. I would say a clarification (ie: a change) of the inclusion policy, which is what I've been focusing on. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Feedback request

1. Like TreyGeek says, "...more prose discussing the significance of the event...then "deletionists" will have less to argue from..."
2. Articles inherently satisfy WP:GEOSCOPE.
3. We are considering forgoing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as part of the compromise.
4. There are plenty of WP:DIVERSE sources using http://www.google.com.br/ etc.
5. Where do we stand on WP:EFFECT and WP:ROUTINE?
6. The omnibus system is good because every event can be represented, and many other reasons.
7. Is this our path forward:

• Get an idea of what this MMA guideline should contain.
• Lay down a lay down a rough draft?
• Bargain and tweak.
• Agree here.
• Bounce it off the community and get broad consensus.
• Get MMA forum folks on board
• Tag --> improve --> check off articles

Am I missing something?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather burnt out on all this right now but I have a suggestion on #1: where applicable make an "Aftermath" section or something similar to talk about the ramifications of an event and also help explain their longer term significance. I suppose it would increase the "prose" content of some of them. Also, on #2, yes, thank you for stating that clearly, articles being inherently satisfying to the people who use them is absolutely critical and I hope that that can be accomplished. Beansy (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Idea #1

• Inclusion Critieria For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article outside of the omnibus articles, the article should have at least one source that is both reliable, independent of the subject, and is significant coverage. This means that the one source passes WP:RS, is not primarily MMA related, and the coverage is about the event and doesn't just mention it in passing. Websites like sherdog are fine (and preferable) for sourcing facts, but not to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

See 1b below, which addresses one omission in the Inclusion Criteria. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Article creation When an event is announced through a source other than one of the fully independent types of websites listed above, the preferred way to introduce the material is to create a section in the proper omnibus article, then create a redirect in main space that points to it. This will allow an article to be created later if the event eventually passes the criteria for inclusion and makes searching and finding the event while it is in the omnibus system more logical and easier. All events should be in an omnibus article, regardless of whether or not they have an independent article. This allows a single page to list events logically on a single page, making it easier to find specific information about any particular event and compare event data. A article should not be created over a redirect until there is at least one source that meets the criteria above, and once created, a hat note pointing to this main article should be added at the top of the corresponding section in the omnibus article, allowing the reader to easily tell which events are particularly notable and have an article with more extensive information.

Commentary/Discussion

• Or something to this effect. Someone better than I would need to merge this into the existing guidelines, this isn't meant to be official text, just my explanation of the critieras. This would be consistent with current WP:GNG guidelines, yet quite lenient in interpreting them, AND it would insure that all new info is preserved somewhere where it will be allowed to be developed potentially for a full article. This would mean 99% less AFD issues plus more overall content. It just adds clarity. As to what info is on each omnibus article and how they are arranged would be another discussion. If I'm missing some finer point, feel free to point it out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• ENDORSE With all my heart, this is the kind of processs and guideline that I've been seeking for the articles. Only a few minor points: Obviously we don't want the omnibus articles to get too large, so splitting the omnibus articles prose into sub articles is definitely encouraged (i.e. 2012 in UFC events gets spinouts to 2012 in UFC Numbered Events, 2012 in UFC on FX, 2012 in UFC ...) as long as there's a minimum of 3 events that are sourced. Second, I'd like to see about 3 to 5 descriptive sentences of prose for an article if it's going to count to the sub article total and about 3 to 4 paragraphs besides the fight descriptions for stand alone event articles. The idea is to have information that a non-fanatic will read and be able to understand. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Question : How would that compare with how other sports are treated, for example, if that was to be applied to Baseball, would not every professional baseball game meet the requirements and therefore qualify for an article ? In which case this proposal would be out of step with current WP practices and if that's the way everyone wishes to go, that's fine, but we need to move this to a more central policy page (WP:Village pump (policy) for example). Mtking ^(edits) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can of worms alert. :) Maybe we should stick to MMA for now, and then others can follow this route too, if they like. This is because MMA is part sport, part event. Baseball can't claim that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) For example Allen's 2-run HR in 9th lifts Rays over Angels 4-3 or Mendoza, clutch hitting lead Royals to 4-2 win would both be described as from a WP:RS (CNN in this case) and CNN is independent of the subject, and they cover the games in significant detail. Mtking ^(edits) 23:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't invite the WP:OTHERSTUFF comparison, this is a local project space rule to help reduce the number of AfDs and to ensure that there's a reasonable structure in place before an event article gets split out. Hasteur (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not, all I am saying is how does this proposal stack up against established practice across other projects, and taking into consideration WP:CONLIMITED, if we are going to depart from that what are the implications. Mtking ^(edits) 23:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The key here is that what I am proposing is simple, understandable, reasonable, within policy, and isn't bogged down with a dozen different policies. Even those that hated the idea at first should find it a reasonable compromise since it guarantees all info will be kept and can be developed, with no new restrictions on article creation. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree it is simple and understandable, but at the moment I am not sure it is in line with our current practice or policy, all MMA events get covered in the sports section of most newspapers or news website, the same as football, baseball, basketball or cricket, so the net effect of this would turn all MMA events covered by CNN or the BBC or the LA Times into a notable event. Mtking ^(edits) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT and create Idea #2 ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• ENDORSE

• Inclusion Critieria Excellent. In fact using foreign sources, multiple refs should be easy.
• Article creation Excellent. As these get created before the actual event, birthplace should be omni, then {{main}}. As you say, this prevents lots of AfDs.

Shouldn't we exclude this requirement from the MMA notability guideline we're putting together, as it overlaps with current GNG? Besides, the aim is to publicize this as the best route. So, why not just add it as a statement to the Wikiproject main page. The slimmer MMA notability guideline the better.

The whole idea of "section then main" is already in the guidelines, right? What do you mean by "...need to merge this into the existing guidelines...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are already guidelines on the main page here. This isn't to replace GNG, this is to interpret GNG as it applies here, in plain english, so it must be 100 percent consistent. GNG requires 1. Independent, 2. reliable 3. significant. 4. At least one (more is better, we let sherdog and others be the "more than one" as long as one is truly independent) We are explaining what the means when you are referring to MMA, we are not redefining it, and we are doing so at the minimum standard. Baseball has to interpret GNG for itself and we need not concern ourselves with that, we only need to make GNG be "common sense" as applied here. This criteria isn't a guarantee it is notable, it just says you can probably assume it is if it passes this test. I think it will be easier to decide what the omnibus articles should look like once we all understand the criteria and methods for introducing new material. More time adding, less time debating, because it is clear. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

100% agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Idea #1b

• Inclusion Critieria For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article outside of the omnibus articles, the article should have at least one source that is reliable, independent of the subject, and discusses the event and its significance. This means that the one source passes WP:RS, is not primarily MMA related, and the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine newsreporting of a sports event published in the days following it and doesn't just mention it in passing. Websites like sherdog are fine (and preferable) for sourcing facts, but not to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

Commentary/Discussion

• Endorse You are correct that it should consider WP:ROUTINE and that doesn't introduce too much complications. This is how we work out what we would introduce at RfC. Of course, now we need more people, which will take a few days. I will strike mine above as it has an obvious flaw that yours fixes. We may have to do this several times. This is the process, and this is progress. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Though I would prefer something like "multiple" over "at least one source" for RS. This would help produce more robust, AfD-proof articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It would, it would also make it more likely to get wider support at the RfC, but maybe less like to win support of the MMA fans/forums. Mtking ^(edits) 01:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

GNG suggests but doesn't require multiple sources. Keep in mind, there will be other sources from sherdog, etc. that source the facts themselves. We are only setting the bar for independence. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But GNG is just that, "general", from there other guidelines spell out exceptions, provisos, etc. So, why not use "multiple" to, as Trey says, give deletionists "less to argue from"? With foreign language references, there should be plenty. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

I would argue that the other guidelines do not offer exceptions, but instead off guidance as how to apply a very general guideline to a specific area. This keeps GNG from being too large and confusing. My experience has always been that if there is a dispute where an article fails GNG but passes a sub guideline, GNG wins every time. GNG is the authority to which all other guidelines get their authority. It has the broadest consensus after being held to the highest scrutiny. The guidelines here are just that, guidelines, and even WP:GNG isn't a policy. An article that passes the guidelines here at MMA can still be deleted for failing WP:N in general. They are only here to give us guidance as to what is likely if the notability of the subject matter were to be called into question, they aren't here to be the final word. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse, with one suggestion Since event announcements and details usually get covered by places like MMAJunkie, Bloody Elbow, and Sherdog first (as in there's often an article up within an hour or two), I would give a grace period between when an article is created for an event and when it gets sourced with a mainstream news report about it before deletion. Say, an article cannot be up for more than two weeks without the latter? I think that would be sufficient for newly created articles, allowing that a deleted article may also be recreated once there is a mainstream news source included. Also I would give editors a longer period of time to add such a citation to existing articles (since there are a lot of them). Beansy (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the plan is for these new articles to be born mostly in omnibuses, expand, then break away to {{main}} articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can live with that, but the people who write these things have to be made aware, and they're not going to be happy that MMA is now being held to what will be perceived as a higher standard than most of the competitive martial arts that serve as its pillars (I have a million more examples). Therefore, the new guidelines need to be very transparent so that when someone makes a page for UFC 150, which I'm guessing will be announced will be announced within the next month (and will probably be a mega-card), it isn't immediately threatened with a deletion tag, but instead gets directed to agreed upon guidelines to adhere to. Maybe a tag for MMA-wikification guidelines can be created for this? Beansy (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"...people who write these things have to be made aware..." Good point. I'm not sure how to spread the word, or what to do when people make stubs. I suspect we cannot put in the new guideline that "event articles must grow up in the omnibus nursery".

Starting UFC 150 as a stand-alone today would be just as vulnerable as any event considering the poor sources that would be available. I don't know if the omnibus nursery is an enforceable "higher standard", but more of a "better way".

Am I missing something here? What is our procedure when UFC 150 is created in advance of the event, and not up to snuff? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the way I use a lot of the articles on upcoming events is to keep a tally of what matches have been announced (there are typically 10-12 matches at any given UFC event). Maybe something for UFC 150 could start in the 2012 in UFC events article or whatever when the event is first announced, and as the card is sufficiently developed with significant matches and it meets single-article criteria with news coverage it could then be made into its own article. Adding a link to 2012 in UFC events to existing UFC event articles from this year will help make readers more aware of the omnibus article. In conjunction, you could then have reciprocal links in the omnibus articles to the individual UFC articles when the required threshold for an individual article is met and one is created. This would also work for Strikeforce shows in my opinion (the UFC and Strikeforce will account for 80% of MMA events able to meet the notability criteria laid out so far). Beansy (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The MMA articles aren't going to be held to a higher standard for inclusion as a stand alone. The problem is that it is more complicated with MMA articles versus an article on a book, for example, because books don't get routine coverage and MMA events do. The key here is that we are creating a "safe" zone for the material to be developed. The real beauty of this is that puts the responsibility and discussion with the MMA community. For instance: A section in an omnibus article can be developed, then you go to the talk page of the omnibus article with "I think UFC 999 is ready to fork into its own article" and the other editors !vote. Often, it will be clearly "support". Other times, it might be split, which gives people the time to go dig up more sources if they exist. Other times it will be clear that it is not ready. At first, you might create an article and someone else pushed it to AFD (maybe it stays, maybe it gets deleted), but soon the MMA community will be able to clearly tell when an article will be accepted by the wider community. This gives the MMA/Wiki community some breathing room and reduces lost effort and drama. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This works for me, but for the major promotions like UFC, the omnibus article is going to be too large and unwieldy for every event to "grow up" there. I would like to re-push the concept of sub-articles that classify the events more if they are not up to the level of independent event articles (2012 in UFC Numbered Events, 2012 in UFC on FX events, 2012 in UFC on Fox events, etc.) The idea is to split the big omnibus into something more readable in a single sitting. Hasteur (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, and I'm working on some ideas for that, but need some education from others, and want to cover that in a different discussion. The focus here is just the guidelines. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I see pros and cons. Advantages of a single omni are greater, I think:

• Ease of navigation
• A cramped omni is incentive to push sections into {{main}}s. We want them to outgrow the pot and need planting in the forest of articles.
• Sequence! MMA's all important sequence of events.
• KISS

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But yes, as Dennis says, let's focus on the guideline and then worry about that. Also, I'm dying to know how we will handle existing articles and new pre-event stubs, but we can maybe save that discussion for after, (unless it is relevant to putting together this guideline now.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Article Creation section wasn't changed, so it would apply. If someone creates the article anyway, and it easily can't pass the criteria, then that info is merged into the omni article and the article becomes a redirect to the omni. No admin or AFD needed, you could boldly do that yourself and discuss it on the talk page. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and I forgot to mention. If it DID get pushed to AFD before someone noticed, it would quickly close as "merge to omni per previous consensus". At first, everyone just !votes "merge" and it quickly snow closes as such. I would need to check policy on that, but I'm betting there are ways to quickly close as such, IF this was the guideline here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. And while we're on the topic, if a guideline is established, and existing articles don't measure up, could we hold off on AfDs during a campaign to improve them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would argue yes we can and should, but that won't stop some random editor on new page patrol from doing so. That is why the guideline change is needed, to offer the closing admin guidance, or to justify a faster closing. (the proposals are only slightly different than the current guidelines anyway, just more specific). If the event is clearly not an article, just a stub with one source from an MMA only site, the better solution is to merge, redirect and THEN discuss it, just so we prevent any hassles, as the end result would already be pretty clear. If editors follow the guidance here and start in omni, then there is very little chance it will be an issue, which is the point. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 13:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect again. One more for you: search above for "provisos". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is a question, since UFC 150 was announced either today or late last night, with a date (August 11th), location (Denver), and venue (the Pepsi Center arena). Obviously the MMA media were quick to report things, including internationally[[5]], but it also already has articles about it on Yahoo Sports[[6]] and ESPN.com[[7]] with both reporting a Lightweight World Title match, and with both articles being more than just stubs, and explaining the significance of the event so far. However, I haven't found mainstream international coverage yet beyond a non-article mention on Globo.com (Globo is Brazil's #1 television network as far as I know), which I wouldn't count. The card as a whole has only 3 announced matches so far out of a probably 11 or 12. So, what would be the remaining criteria needed at this point for an independent article that we could agree upon? Additional news coverage from multiple international mainstream sources I'm pretty sure is inevitable after doing further resource, although obviously that doesn't mean anything until it actually happens, but in any event perhaps this could be considered a test case to discuss. Beansy (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The coverage you linked to is just the sort of routine coverage that the announcements of these events get (can't read the Globo.com one) , so as far as a stand alone article (correct me Dennis if I have misinterpreted your wording) there would need to be an article that discuss why this event is going to be of enduring significance in other words why will people keep writing about this long after the UFC trucks have left town to go to UFC 151. Mtking ^(edits) 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were past that point with comparing it to other sports, and were instead trying to establish standards of notability within MMA. Trying to compare individual sports with major team sports is a fallacy anyway. Will anyone talk about the 2008 Legg Mason Tennis Classic - Singles tournament years from now? It's not even a Grand Slam. I'm pretty sure tennis fans will. Will anyone talk about the Formula One 2011 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix? Auto racing fans will, and I'm sure they knew they would as soon as the event was announced. Will anyone talk about the 2005 Iditarod? I'm pretty sure sled racing fans will. Does anyone talk about the 2009 K-1 World Grand Prix Final 16? Kickboxing fans do. Will anyone talk about UFC 150? MMA fans will undoubtedly, and would even if a World Title wasn't on the line. Several years from now, will baseball fans talk about a particular game this summer between two random teams that gets viewed by millions of people? Not unless something absolutely incredible happens, and even then probably not unless they're a fan of that team. Again, we're trying to establish standards of enduring notability within a sport. Beansy (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moot. If you look at the main page here, it already spells out the guidelines for notability, which are close to what is already being discussed (identical in most ways). Until there is a change, those are the guidelines. If you can demonstrate how an excluded article meets all the points of the existing criteria, then I'm all ears. All the comparing is pointless as it is entirely subjective. That is the purpose of the guidelines, to provide an object stick with which to measure by. Sometimes I think we all forget that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Let's not lose momentum. Shall we push forward?
• Will this proposed guideline mention specific events (Pat's 123, for example)?
• Are we ready to lay down a draft?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am open to including some form of mention relating to specific events, but before we could, it would have to be shown that at least more often than not that class of events passed the proposed test above. The big advantage to this wording over the current is it explains exactly what is expected of the article on a MMA event. Mtking ^(edits) 09:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"I am open to including some form of mention relating to specific events". Parsing that, it sounds like all you are even "open" to is the existence of specific MMA events being mentioned somewhere and nothing more. That would mean that the lower limit of what you are open to is reducing hundreds of articles down to a short list of the biggest events with event names, dates, and locations, and no other details, placed as a section inside the main Mixed Martial Arts article or main UFC article. If that's not what you meant, could you perhaps clarify what you meant?

Beyond that, the standards of inherent notability seem to be the biggest impasse here. I'd like to resolve that too, but there are a number of other issues that I think most people seem to be much closer to an agreement on. Specifically:

• What goes into an event-specific page or an omnibus article (I think the elements that were already in there in the first place would be fine with the addition of a section that details the ramifications of the event, and maybe minus walk-out music lists)

• How a promotion is split into specific omnibus articles (if they are split at all, in the case of a short-lived promotion; I think we have an agreement that for most promotions annual omnibuses are fine, while Bellator's numerous shows require being split into different seasons and the annual Summer series, and the UFC's numerous huge events require four different articles)

• When to add an event to an existing omnibus article (I would think sufficient criteria for an addition to an omnibus would be once a name, date, and venue are announced, with some flexibility on venues in situations where a venue is announced and then canceled while the event relocates; other details would be added as they are announced)

• What to do with omnibus articles as events are split off (I would propose to keep all the raw data and continue to add it, with much less emphasis on prose than in the individual articles)

• How to make editors aware of the new guidelines once established

• I think we've come to a tentative consensus that when inherent notability of a specific event has been established it is to be separated from an existing omnibus article.

So perhaps we could work on those at the moment? It will make things a lot faster once the notability issue is resolved and it may also build some momentum in the meantime. Beansy (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What goes into event specific or omnibus article: Infobox with date/place/location/attendance/gate takings/prize pot, 1~3 decently sized paragraphs explaining anything besides raw match-up stats (including if a fighter is switched out, the event is moved/rescheduled), and raw match-up statistics table

How to split a promotion's events into manageable units: All events start in the List of events omnibus. Once we get to 3~4 events on the omnibus that can be classified a specific way (EX:2012 in UFC on Fox,2012 in Bellator Summer Series) then we can spilt them to a sub-omnibus article

When to add a new event to an existing omnibus article: Your definition sounds about right with the explicit caveat that promotions that have not hosted about a year's worth of events yet be not added as they're more likely to close up shop before they establish any real notability.

What do do with Omnibus articles as events are split: I would say remove the raw data, and re-write the prose to give a overview of the event.

How to make new editors aware of the guidelines: The same way we do with all new editors, we offer them the advice, explain WP's consensus model, show them the guidelines, let the "WikiAdults" get the articles into a position where it's likely to not be AfDed, start applying sanctions for those that refuse to work collaboratively.

Sorry for the long line of posting Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary Break

Moving Backwards

Since Wikipedia ostensibly pretends to be a useful reference for all its users, can someone please please summarize for all the actual people who use these pages why the hell are we doing this? I posted the following msg to another page a while back and didn't get a single reply from the 3 "contributors" who obviously know very little (other than it's a sport) about the article content under discussion yet are on a personal crusade for a change that NONE of the very numerous page users want:

AFAICT, the argument fundamentally comes down to this: "this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite". These two purposes are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for a page to be useful to fans and be of notable historical value. For example, prior MMA events have bearing on current and future ones, and therefore are quite frequently references by those interested in the background tree leading up to any subsequent upcoming event. The hits for each event page tell the tale of this inherent usefulness. I can only assume that this argument is being perpetuated by someone who knows practically nothing about the specifics of the subject/sport at hand and therefore cannot contribute a meaningful opinion. Even if we're to combine the the pages, the result is unwieldy and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work; it does not cost any more bits, but in fact less, to link smaller pages. This isn't some new revelation, Tim Berners-Lee had it when he created the WWW/HTML.

At some point I think we have to step back and ask if the priority of Wikipedia is provide a useful reference or provide a playground for bureaucrats who don't care about the usefulness of the end result. These two purposes ARE mutually exclusive, so will the less than handful of crusaders please answer this simple question (you know who you are). Agent00f (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your questions have already been asked by others and answered previously, above. If you ask more specific questions, it is easier to give more specific answers. The issue isn't the number of bits. In part, the issue is that other editors keep nominating the articles for deletion, and many are getting deleted. One solution was the merge to allow articles to develop before spinning them off, to reduce deletions, and allow more MMA content on the whole. It is helpful if you assume good faith, and consider that the actions being discussed are for reducing deletions and debates. It is fine to disagree with the solutions presented, but it is more helpful when you suggest better ideas. "Leaving it alone" has already failed spectacularly, so it isn't a viable option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I have read much of the above and cannot find what I seek (and what you speak of). Even if it exists, no normal sane MMA fan who uses these pages is going to go through the pain when a simple summary from the decisionmakers makes it so much easier for EVERYONE ELSE. If anything, that attitude is exactly the kind of bureaucracy over clarity that anyone looking for straightforward information find so abysmal. More to the point, if the fundamental issue seems to be that a few (and by few I mean 3) other editors who obviously have zero interest in this topic/sport other than just another target for their rule-guided rather goal-guided obsession is causing problems, why is everyone else compromising the USEFULNESS of all the material to accommodate their OCD? It's also clear that we're only assuming "good faith" in their ability to argue minutia rather than serve users, and that "leaving it alone" is only being dropped to satisfy a vocal minority who doesn't even count among the actual userbase, instead of because it's an inherently poor solution in the eyes of actual wiki users. Finally, the simple and clear question above still doesn't have an answer. Agent00f (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Anyone can register an account, and nominate the article on the same day, in good faith. Doing nothing means that people will keep nominating these articles because, at the least, there is reason to believe they don't comply with the criteria here. I can't stop that, no one can. So you find the ideas on this page as fatally flawed. Ok, fair enough: Then what do you suggest as a solution to stop all these articles from getting nominated and deleted at AFD? I'm all ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to automatically assume it's done in good faith when it's beyond abundantly obvious that it's less than a handful of users who have an agenda which is in conflict with the goals of all the other users. Let's step back again and evaluate the situation: there's some pages on the web with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of users who are quite content, then there's less than a known handful of "contributors" whose actions screw up this arrangement and make life harder not only for the users but also creates unnecessary work for their peers. Add to this the fact they already expressed they don't care about anyone else. Given that this is something which occurs on the internet with great frequency, the solution seems rather obvious to me. The alternative is that we must necessarily accommodate crusaders just because they can be persistently annoying. Agent00f (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Agent00f, you have come in claiming malicious intent of several editors without specific proof, you've accused Mtking of deliberately wanting to wreck the entire article space, and you've made strong suggestions that editors are acting in bad faith with the article space and on the policy pages. This constitutes an official warning to knock off the assumptions of bad faith. Wikipedia works by consensus, and for the most part we're forming one. The reason why we're laying out all these policies and rules is to prevent editors such as yourself from landing on the wrong side of the policies and being sanctioned for it. I think I can speak for most of the contributors to this draft when I say that we're trying to make a fairly ironclad checklist (as that's what several drive-by nominators use) to prevent the unnecessary deletion of articles. Hasteur (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
          • To the contrary, I've never said that anyone is acting maliciously toward another. To be clear, what I said is that they have acted selfishly, a rather different concept altogether. This claim is very self-evident given that they see no value in the views of the far greater plurality who actually use the pages, instead dropping only very narrow interpretation of the guidelines in every reply. Their faith in their own personal take on the Wiki rules is quite devout and apparently unassailable by evidence or argument to the contrary, so there's no reason to question this good faith and I'm puzzled at why you feel I was. However given that they've brought up the users approximately zero times, I can only assume that their faith in users is approximately zero. Ergo, from my perspective I'm not the one perpetuating wrong assumptions. Agent00f (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
          • it's beyond abundantly obvious that it's less than a handful of users who have an agenda which is in conflict with the goals of all the other users, less than a known handful of "contributors" whose actions screw up this arrangement, creates unnecessary work for their peers, we must necessarily accommodate crusaders just because they can be persistently annoying,what I said is that they have acted selfishly, a rather different concept altogether,very self-evident given that they see no value in the views of the far greater plurality who actually use the pages,faith in their own personal take on the Wiki rules is quite devout and apparently unassailable by evidence or argument to the contrary,I'm not the one perpetuating wrong assumptions. These are the attacks on editors who are attempting to uphold the policies as they exisist and are here for the long run. Not the fairweather whims of the MMA community who come in for their day in the sun and vanish overnight. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • These are all factual statements based on what (and only what) certain editors have post themselves. If you feel they are not accurate in any way, please argue the case for it instead of dropping righteous indignant in an attempt to stop an uncomfortable discussion about how things are. Sometimes, the truth can portray people in a poor light, that's simply how reality is. However, just as there can be two divergent opinions on how to handle wiki pages, I don't feel that covering up what is real because it can hurt feelings is preferable to being open and transparent. For example, it's simply undeniable that creating these new omnibus pages is a bunch of work, and the results are plainly worse for their users. Not once have the 3 editors we all know spoken of this plain and obvious fact to indicate that they give a damn. Given that all evidence to date supports what I have written, I cannot rescind these statements of fact; they can be deleted, but not because they're inaccurate in any way. Now that we have established these are all correct, I hope someone can address this reality openly and transparently. Agent00f (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Agent, you've managed to restate the problem, but I'm asking what is your solution? What fix will make these problems go away? I'm quite sincere here, I would like to hear what you think would fix this mess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think very few of the users or editors who generally created, maintained or read the MMA articles had any egregious problems with them in the first place (and without anyone being "sanctioned" that I can recall as long as they followed the established format). That's the problem. The MMA wiki project and format has been well-established for several years. There are a few things that few contributors to those articles would terribly object to (the removal of entrance-music lists, for example), but those things are completely trivial compared to what has been proposed. This is why people need to know why these are actual "problems" not protected under Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar: "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." These were/are informational articles with a uniform format, a solid and well-established community that would maintain them and protect them from vandalism, and would resolve internal formatting disputes on their own, and were pages with considerable popularity, and the articles existed in such a way that they helped those interested in the sport have a deeper understanding of it and its history, and those who were looking for specific historical information in MMA find their answer, while being generally and inherently satisfying to their userbase. The result is that absolutely no one is happy with the current situation. There are compromises people have put on the table that I could personally live with, but it is absolutely fair to ask what purpose the current action against the MMA Wikipedia Project serves beyond satisfying bureaucracy in and of itself, when Wikipedia is explicitly not a bureaucracy. Beansy (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis_Brown, my overall point is that to the users of these pages, these all look like solutions in search of a problem. IOW, no problem exists with the pages themselves, and if we're forced to identify the "problem" as source of the dispute, it's the 3 persons here who seem to have a personal vendetta against a useful reference despite knowing nothing about how the resource is being used. To put it bluntly, get rid of these few troublemakers whose purpose is at odds with everyone else (ie thousands), and everyone will be happy. This is exactly why I address my criticism to them directly, and why they will continue to dodge the question above of where their purpose lies. Put another way, given they are 3 people who have no interest in the subject otherwise, while there are far more active contributors who see no problem with the status quo, why the hell is anyone even giving them time of day? As some reinforcement for just how terrible this new system is: no entity in MMA thinks of UFC events in terms of annual "seasons"; it's a context which simply has no meaning, whereas an Event/Card very much does to anyone remotely versed in MMA. Other useful ways of organizing MMA information are by title/weight and by fighter, both of which are also already covered in wiki. The comparison to seasonal sport would be like dividing them by month with an entry for each, eg "Jan 2007 F1 races"; IOW even worse than a waste of effort for the many other volunteers trying to appease a very vocal tiny minority. Furthermore, to elaborate on idea around guidelines for Wiki, IMO the fundamental goal of the project is to present useful general reference info, and the point of the rules are guidelines to assist contributors towards that end. There is no dispute here AFAICT that the existing MMA pages are useful references for everyone with an interest in the sport, and until the three crusaders can propose a superior solution themselves we're simply pampering those throwing a tantrum without a purpose. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite beautifully argued, Beansy. If there's no overriding objective for usability, isn't Wikipedia just a social experiment? It's worth looking at who the proposed compromise is satisfying. Are the pages usable for its actual viewers? If not, are the pages gone for the deletionists? If not, is the compromise just a 'win' (I assume good faith, but I struggle to suspend logic and ignore basic human nature) for people who felt like changing something without any plan in mind whatsoever? If the honest truth is only a 'yes' to the last question, can you really say that's reason enough to break from an established format? Can you really say that satisfies common sense? Can you really say 'There's nothing horribly wrong about this?' You tell me. I say the following with no intent to offend: Perhaps it's time to X out of this box, look left, look right, and look ahead again. Perspective's valuable. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• You both raise interesting points, and I appreciate the overall tone. It is late here, too late to give a proper reply, and besides I want to think about your points. Again, my role here has and is to help implement whatever the consensus is, that is within the guidelines at Wikipedia. Yes, it sounds bureaucratic and to a degree it is I suppose, but there is a degree of bureaucracy here whether we admit it or not. I'm not interested in making changes solely for the sake of bureaucracy, however. I came here because of a string of AFDs that were full of sockpuppets and meatpuppets and frankly, lots of bad faith. The fact that I'm neutral as to MMA serves a purpose as one voice that isn't tainted by love or hate of the sport. Let me be perfectly clear: The numbers in a vote do not impress me. The logic and rational applications of common sense and the 5 pillars, as well as other guidelines does. In my opinion, it was a mess before, but it is still a mess, and I've sworn that I will ride it out until we can find a compromise that works best for the largest number of people and is still acceptable to the larger community as a whole. And yes, the larger community matters, because people who don't like MMA, or love it, or don't care, they all have the same voice here. A few people are still coming here whose faith I doubt, but most of the people still here I don't doubt, even if we disagree on some points. Every time someone announces for their buddies to come here on outside forums, it just slows down the process. Again, numbers of votes mean nothing on Wikipedia, it isn't a democracy. But I take your comments in full faith, and I've been talking to others, including TG, Mt, Anna and admins who have been involved, and I'm trying, truly trying, to help provide some guidance on moving forward. I ask a little patience, and most of you have complied. We all need to remember to continue to assume good faith and remember that we all want to find a solution. In that respect, we are already on the same side. Lets work on finding other commonalities that we agree on, build trust in each other, and work a solution in a calm and productive way. It looks to me that we are already moving there by the fact that we can calmly discuss this, and I appreciate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "The numbers in a vote do not impress me": If the voice of the people who use the reference pages on a given subject are not the primary concern, then the question become what exactly is the purpose of having a wiki anyway? This might not be a dictatorship of the masses, but I hope it's not the dictatorship of a detached elite either. "remember that we all want to find a solution": I think it's more important to discern what problem is being "solved" here. For those interested in MMA and thus view the pages, it's to provide the most useful reference for the sport possible. For some, it appears to be that some useful pages do not live up to their rigid personal interpretation of general guidelines. These are cross purposes and fundamentally dualing priorities here, which is exactly why I asked the first question which has not been answered by anyone (though we could all hazard a guess given what's been going on). I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other, but it's critical the powers that be defend their preference in their decision. Put in simple terms, it seems the point of Wiki as a whole is to draw the audience for any general topic of reference (which the individual UFC pages most assuredly do given that they're events viewed by millions), and to leave them with their curiosity satisfied. The current state of things cover both to the best of the contributor's abilities. Of course others can disagree this is a good way to evaluate pages, but I only ask that they also state the basis of their disagreement simply. Also, speaking of decisions, I was hoping from the beginning that someone, anyone, can eventually summarize the executive decision(s) so that the rest of us don't have to divine it from many long and poorly organized pages.Agent00f (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Agent00f, again you're making tangential/ad-homenim attacks. STOP NOW. The status quo for how MMA articles is not working. That's why we are needing to refine the current guidelines.Hasteur (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
      • If we're conducting ourselves to the standards of formal logic, please specify how any of the above is tangential or adhom. AFAICT, reflecting on how these pages are serving users is quite relevant to a discussion about how to format these pages. I have also not predicated any judgement on any specific person (to be fair many people use the "adhom" fallacy without understanding what it means). Perhaps my argument was not clear in which I can re-state even more simply: there are clearly two different and divergent ways of evaluating the worth of a page. One way is to consider its usefulness to actual users, which is how I and all other users in general do it, and which doesn't factor into the judgement of a few here (as we can plainly see from all their comments above). Another path is to evaluate the page against personal interpretations of general wiki guidelines, which is what the latter use, and which I obviously do want to engage in (for various good reasons I can expand on if anyone cares). These two approaches are fundamentally different, and it's best if we all got a clarification of what the powers that be prefer so that we don't waste our time chasing solutions down the wrong path.Agent00f (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I have to agree that there is no semblance of an ad hominem attack in Agent's post. Personally, I'm getting sick of the innuendo, and the accusations being levied at one side of the contributors. We've seen at least one false sockpuppet allegation (I don't feel it necessary to link the page, but if anyone wants to see it, I will provide a link), and the minority appear to be trying to make the point that there is 'meatpuppeting' going on. I think it's clear people visited those pages. Anna was kind enough to provide us with page view statistics. It's really quite plausible that people tried to visit those pages, were unable to, and independently came to these discussions. I think it's really quite rich that some experienced contributors seem to be assuming people are 'meatpuppets' because there was some lobbying on some forums (you can call it lobbying, I call it informing potentially affected third parties). That is an example of gross hypocrisy. We should assume good faith, and you should assume we've been canvassed? It's obscene and it's offensive. As is the constant tagging of users on this side of the argument as 'fanboys.' MtKing (and others) make it really quite hard to assume good faith when he uses words to the effect of 'let the MMA fanboys go cry about it on their forums when Wikipedia takes away their statsbook.' I didn't see any apology for that. Without such, I can't see where the rationale for assuming a lack of bias comes from. I'm not a boy. I'm a man. I'm a fan man (Please note: I am not the Fanman). Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
          • You deplore innuendo, but contribute to it. Great to see the double standard in effect. Hasteur (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Do you have any intention of backing up that claim or challenging any of my assertions? I will gladly substantiate them. If not, feel free to stop accusing people of things without basis, when they disagree with you. It's transparent. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Transparency is what WP is founded on. Either lay out what you believe to be the false claim of Sockpuppetry that you asserted in the 13:38 post or strike it to show a retraction of your claim. Civility is applicable to every editor. As such I am striking my commentary about the double standard, but I still think your posting invokes such a standard. Editors who have been working on the project are extraordinarily familiar with the "Call To Arms" mechanic that has been repeated multiple times in the 6 months I've been looking at the topic space. It appears that every time the project starts to take a step forward in raising the bar of quality, hordes of newly registered accounts (and IP editors) come out of the woodwork to clamor for the status quo. I say again... The Status Quo for MMA articles is not working. This is evidenced by the rounds at various content discussion boards, ANI, and multiple forms of dispute resolution. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
                • Transparency, yes. Transparent retaliation, I don't believe so. That said, I will take your retraction as a positive sign. Here is the SPI: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129/Archive I would appreciate an acknowledgement that I did indeed say I would provide the evidence upon request, then followed up exactly as I said I would. I am not suggesting that you are personally adhering to a double standard, Hasteur. I am suggesting that what I perceived to be an incorrect accusation of ad hominem attack is adding to a distinctly anti-MMA fan atmosphere. I'm willing and able to contribute (not just to MMA), and I am clearly capable of being civil. I just don't appreciate the continued vilification of MMA fans. As for the Call to Arms pattern, are you suggesting that this should negate an assumption of good faith initially? I think that's unfair and wrong. I don't get the sense that we're being encouraged to participate. I get the sense that we're being dismissed as 'fairweather' and encouraged to leave. I don't appreciate that. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again I agree that the old format was fine. The MMA Wiki Project is a capable group of editors who make sure that UFC articles are well sourced, detailed and filled with useful information. Not sure what the point of it is, but the new format will only damage the successful coverage of UFC events on Wikipedia. After an event, the article for the event always get high traffic. Portillo (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• It should be clear, but when I say that the sheer number of votes don't impress me, I am clearly referring to droves of people that have never been here, suddenly appearing and their only contribution is "Mee too!" at a !vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy is very clearly the basis for my statement, if anyone needs the actual link. What convinced me is strong arguments and open and honest discussion. In other words, good faith deeds by those who are participating. And yes, I've seen many, many threads on the various forums calling for others to participate here, in hit and run "mee too!" fashion, and when it happens, I'm not persuaded. As to those arguing they are useful, this link is likely a good read. Utility is a valid concern, but it doesn't trump the existing guidelines. Again, my goal is to try marry the two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm not using 'It's useful' as a reason to keep the articles. I think other people have properly summed up the argument of notability for inclusion. I'm suggesting that utility ought to be relevant in the WEIGHT arguments are given when trying to establish the consensus, and particular when considering a compromise. My point on usability is only relevant in the context of an unnavigable omnibus. If a compromise can be reached whereby the information should be kept, it seems contrary to logic, and contrary to utility for such information to be presented in an in-optimal manner, solely to appease people who won't be using it. Kind regards, Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "What convinced me is strong arguments and open and honest discussion." What would convince me and other page users that this statement is true is if the simple arguments of fact presented here by those opposed to change are all addressed instead of "noted" without a subsequent reply (this is not necessarily direct at Dennis Brown, who has been among the more helpful editors). What's been obvious from the start is that actual empirical evidence like page hit stats and discussion of use cases (many graciously provided by Ana) have been ignored and the majority was roped into an argument between personal interpretations of vaguely worded/connected rules (ironically guidelines ostensibly set up to make for the best user experience). Let's be completely frank here and consider how a typical wiki user (rather than a career editor) sees this discussion: a couple of insiders leveraging their knowledge of the system and unambiguous rule minutia with the consequence of taking down what is a very useful public reference resource. Even in light of this "injustice", a common user would be very hesitant to step into this fray of bureaucratic debate esp if he sees straight up facts being brushed aside for focus on rules seemingly only based on other rules, even if the hideous markup language (why isn't this done w/ proper discussion sw?) wasn't already daunting enough. Thus the voice of stake-holders (ie users) is shut out altogether, even if that's not the direct intent. Agent00f (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is a separate comment on the role of "compromise" in this situation. Not sure why I persist on this given that I haven't received a single straightforward reply yet; I'll just chalk that up to not being clear enough instead of lack of good faith. So to put the question as simply as possible: what exactly are we "compromising" between here? If it's between different factions of bureaucracy, then there's nothing more to be said by people not interested in these strictly internal matters. However, if it's between some semblance of the real world and bureaucracy (ie what claims to be useful and what claims to be technically correct), then it's worth noting that while it's always possible in some sense to split the difference between two divergent paths, splitting between reality and the rulebook makes for arbitrary decision making which is not conducive to rational objectives. Also, speaking of logic/reasoning, in its formal academic formulation resorting to axiomatic truisms to argue deductive logic will never make for a provably consistent case. Put more elegantly, there's a reason why science with its emphasis on observable empirical reality rather than rigid mathematical definition is far more successful at producing positive real world results; and it's also worth noting that the technically correct camp's "rigid" formulation is only true in the rhetorical rather than technical sense.Agent00f (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't stress this enough, the "new" format would not prevent any article that is properly sourced from existing in any way. I think this is the point that keeps getting missed. It would allow events that are future, or didn't get enough coverage, to still exist in the omnibus, rather than be completely erased outright. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't think people are necessarily missing this entirely. If users graded solution on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being deletion and 10 being the status quo, the omnibus might be a 7. IOW, much better than 1 but not quite as good as the original. The various objections to this pretty nonsensical way of organizing MMA info have already been stated, and it can be deduced from your replies thus far that these are simply less important than accommodating a (vocal) specific reading of broad guidelines. AFAICT, this basically solves the objection that single pages don't contain enough stuff by cramming a bunch all together so it crosses some arbitrary threshold. It's not the worst way to go about it, but IMO seems more like a face-saving measure (again, not direct towards you but rather the process as a whole) than rationally justifiable decision. Agent00f (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In regard to what you're saying, Dennis, I think most everyone appreciates the work you're doing on this project. I don't think there's any need for rush. At the risk of repeating myself, one point, on the aspect of 'satisfying the largest number of people.' I really do think utility has to play a part in determining the eventual guideline/policy. I don't mean usability this time. What I mean is, it is really worth spelling out HOW the different groups are being satisfied from the compromise. If one group is getting great utility from the pages, and the other group gets virtually no utility from their removal or compression, I think regardless of the numbers (and those are self-evident), one side's arguments command more attention. If we're talking about the Project, I don't get the impression that it exists in and of itself. People who are claiming to want these pages gone for the sake of the Project, seem caught up on what their idea of the project should be. An inflexible approach on such a topic seems a betrayal of the Wikipedia ethos. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So the new format will allow individual articles as long as they are properly sourced. But it seems as though even if we add reliable sources, these editors will still say that it is not notable because it did not have a long-lasting effect on society. Portillo (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Do you think we could archive some stuff? Everything before this notability discussion is well moot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving is set up to archive threads in which no responses have been made in 672 hours (28 days). That is somewhat shorter than normal, but appears to work out just fine. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is probably about right for this page. There is a lot of discussion, but there is a lot going on right now. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I can live with it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream coverage of Bellator

Removed duplicate posting from Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships by same IP address Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And here we go again...

Well, while everyone is trying to figure out the best process, user Newmanoconnor has taken it upon himself to nominate 8 more UFC pages for deletion. Sigh. Udar55 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I put up an ANI notice here and notified all those I mentioned. Anyone else feel free to add to the discussion. I'm not entirely sure he even knows what he is doing as he appears to have only been here for 16 days or so. Udar55 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made a request at the ANI to hold off, as a personal favor. He is under no obligation to do so, of course. I wish I was faster about this, but I'm actually trying to cook up an idea that might be consistent with what everyone wants, subject to everyone's approval of course. This has been a trial by fire for me, and you all have no idea how appreciative I am of the fact that everyone is getting along better and beginning to trust each other's motives. Yes, it gets snippy from time to time, but that is part of the process and we just need to keep assuming good faith of each other and keep working on the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, now that I'm on the same page with the other hard working guys here, Where do things stand, this page is a mess. It might be good to summarize where things are?

Also, Udar55 , in an effort to show I'm not trying to stir @#$! up, I was about to nominate a host of Bamma pages, 6 or so, do you have an issue with that? I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you've argued that Bamma and other promoters do not meet notability requirements for stand alone pages compared to UFC? Now I'm not gonna nominate anything until Dennis says it's ok, but I'd like you opinionNewmanoconnor (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with BAMMA individual event pages being AfD. Udar55 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • Just look up and read. We are at the part where we are picking up all the random pieces and trying to figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion, but AfD is generally seen as adversarial. Take a look at WP:BEFORE as it offers some suggestions on alternatives (Such as proposing a Merge of the content) to lessen the impact that Deletion typically engages. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward, no need to wait

Putting aside the RFC for just a moment, lets work on something we might all be able to agree and work on. This is a rough idea, based on the ideas and hard work mainly of Mtking and TreyGeek, after hearing the concerns of everyone, adding some tweaks, and after consulting the almighty Wikibible. I can take no credit for the idea, unless you think it sucks, then I guess I will take all the blame ;) This has nothing to do with individual articles at all, and works whether or not they exist, in whole or in part. Just clear them from your mind, or pretend they all will exist, it doesn't matter for this omnisystem. Even if we include every single UFC event in separate articles, having an omnibus system will very cool because it will allow you to see all the matches at a glance, including links, results, etc. We can debate the names I'm using another day, first I want to focus on the structure only. Obviously, you can insert the appropriate year as needed. And please use your imagination, this can be tweaked in many ways, small or large. Think about it a bit.

• List of UFC events (2012)

(This article has the least amount of info per event, but it will list every single events that happens for the entire sport. It is kind of like a table of contents of sorts, and links all the individual articles and the subsections. No images. It might show the main event, but not every single event. It is more of a quick guide, with links to the other main pages below. Not pretty but extremely useful in limited circumstances as it puts EVERY match in one place, something that appears to be missing now. Likely, each entry should be one or two lines in a clean table, with no results. This makes it easy to maintain as it is mainly a gateway article.)

• • UFC on FX 2012

This is just like 2012 in UFC events now, but limited to FX matches so it won't be so long. It lists matches, with prose of highlights, images of the poster when appropriate and if legal, just like the current (but oversized) omni. Think of it as a collection of mini-articles, and it can have MAIN tags to the primary individual article. Even when we all agree that an event doesn't justify a separate article yet, it will get the respect it deserves here. These will be the most useful, since you can compare the results of many, many matches all on one page.

• • UFC on Fuel TV 2012

See above, same thing different channel, and do the same for all channels...

• • UFC ???

Same as above, but for listing the numbered events like UFC 143, etc. I have no idea what to call it, help me out here.

• • • Individual articles - (not an issue for this proposal. This proposal works regardless.)

Overview

• PROS - It doesn't matter what individual articles exist, these omnibus articles are useful. You can quickly get a feel for the entire year on FX or Fuel TV at a glance. When a future match is announced you always start it in the omni article and add it to the yearly directory. You then create a redirect with the future name (ie: UFC on FX 200 ) and point it toward the UFC on FX 2012 (or whatever omni) article for now. The information will exist, no one is likely to try to delete the redirect, the information is safe. Once there is enough information and sources to allow it to be a full article, you just recreate the article over the redirect (no admin needed). Even if an article goes to AFD, the information can't be deleted because it exists in the omni. Worst case scenario, it becomes a redirect (under the same naming convention you already use) and points to the exact same info in the omni. Data, results, prose, none of that can ever be lost. Because it is now a redirect, the article history itself is never lost. This makes it way, way easier to recreate the article once it does meet notability. This is particularly true for future events which don't have much coverage.

• CONS - It is a little more work, but not much. For example on a future event, you create the section in UFC on FX 2012, you add a line in the main List of UFC events (2012) pointing towards it, then create the redirect in main space and point it to the UFC on FX 2012 section (same link as in the List of). Once notable, the article is just placed over the redirect, no admin is needed.

• BIG BIG PRO - One of the biggest advantages of this is that most matches will start in UFC on FX 2012 (or similar) so the tables and info will be uniform across all articles, and you will be able to add and add and add until it is complete, with NO fear of AFD. A stress free place to build the future article. The subarticles are pretty safe because even if a few of the events might not pass muster as "notable", I would fight hard to convince others that the grouping as whole ARE. Once it clearly passes criteria, you merge/copy the info from the omni to the individual article. Most of the time, it won't pass criteria until after the event, so the omni will have the results already, just copy over, then in the new article, you add extra prose until your heart is content. Keep in mind, it still has to pass criteria as a stand alone article, but that doesn't change anything inside the omni articles.

Again, much of this is simply restating what Mtking and TreyGeek have previously done with one big exception: Forget about what articles belong and don't for now, just we just build the thing and hash out the individual article later. No RFC is needed for this part of the solution and there will be instant benefits in usability and the amount of material here. This omnibus system is useful because it offers additional coverage, ability to compare matches on one page, a safe haven for results, and is handy whether or not anything else is done.

Feel free to point out the holes or failures in my logic, I can take it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

That's perfect... I'd suggest UFC Numbered Events in 2012 for the non-channel series of events. This does mean that the numbered events sub-omni will be significantly larger than the other ones, but that only encourages editors to develop the content so that we can properly spin out the individual numbered events. The only thing I can think is possibly a big edit notice that we slap on each of the redirected articles (and ones we discover) so that the effort is not wasted on de-redirecting something that isn't ready for it's own article. Hasteur (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea along with Haster's point. I also think it would be a good idea to have omnibus pages for Bamma, I really am not interested in just getting rid of MMA stuff, the really minor stuff I think should not be included but 2nd tier(I think) like Bamma and Strikeforce would probably need a single Omnibus for quite awhile. I'm more than willing to do the work, but I need some help with the formatting.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As a sidebar, 2012 in Super Fight League was created partially as a last frustration of a editor, but the "evil 3" decided to let it remain and be a vehicle for the SFL event chain. Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with this course of action, if it can be shown that the aim is to cover the events in a way consistent with existing WP existing policy, maybe the fans will understand it. On a procedural note when (if) we go this route it would be crucial to use the {{merge to}} with a centralised discussion point and rap that in with a RfC header. Mtking ^(edits) 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly this is the kind of top-down bureaucratic attitude that drives away actual stakeholders (ie users/readers) from interest in the discussion and ultimately away from wiki. Whether this is intentional is debatable, but the consequences are clear. To make the logic surround "rules" crystal, note that generalizations (ie rules) are only valid with an understanding of the unlying specifics. To borrow a very common example from above, without some knowledge of how MMA works on the ground, it's farcical to random apply rules from other sports in the hopes that they fit by coincidence. Again, rules as generalities only have meaning when they're derived from a correct comprehension of reality, not when they are divined by dogma, esp. via other rules. Humanity learned this from the scientific revolution about two hundred years ago, but the broad consensus among wiki insiders still seems to be to start with law and work reality into it somehow instead of the other way around. This argument will of course be ignored like all others which makes perfect sense because the process can proceed regardless.Agent00f (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at Talk:BAMMA#Merge_Events_into_BAMMA_Events_article about how I intend to merge all of the BAMMA events together into one article. Please feel free to make comments. I'll go back through the individual articles and re-tag them with the link to the discussion Hasteur (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps pointing them here might be more effective, and keep it on one page. Just to prevent confusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that BAMMA can be a part of this, and would like want to make sure they know this idea is on the table, and take several days to make sure that we have a consensus for this upgrade of the MMA coverage. For that matter, the directory type article can be "List of MMA events 2012", not just UFC if there is a consensus to expand this the entire sport. But I want to make sure that everyone has had the time to comment, offer ideas, and most importantly: be heard. If I've learned anything while I've been here, it is that we all need to be working together and compromise a little bit to get good things done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Using the mechanics outside of AfD and others to WP:SOFIXIT on the series of articles. I'll include a pointer at this centralized discussion in the merger proposal Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work there, Dennis. One thing I would like to point out is that a List of UFC events already exists. Perhaps List of UFC events (2012) would be redundant? Also, the UFC has televised events on FOX (I think 5 total this year). For the sake of consolidation, you might consider doing the following:

• UFC Numbered Events in 2012 (per Hauser's title suggestion above)
• UFC on TV in 2012 (this could incorporate all of the Fuel, FX and FOX events, which will total 16 or so)

In the end, I can see them existing like the Bellator Fighting Championships season pages. Udar55 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is exactly what I'm wanting to happen. Not to give you the answers, but to offer some ideas and let you guys, the ones that really know MMA, figure out the proper solutions. Think I will sit back a bit and let you discuss... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think there are much in the way of interested users of these pages left at all for the reasons stated above. In a real sense the bureaucrats have already won if this is going forward regardless with implementation details rather than a discussion of what actual value change brings. The lack of any summary of the broader decision making is already evidence that those interested in that conversation need not apply. Agent00f (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have been out of this discussion for a couple weeks now, and I don't know if this is the right section to put this comment (feel free to move it if it belongs somewhere else). I probably read this on a talk page somewhere, but I can't find it. Regarding naming conventions, while in the past I supported the 2012 in UFC format, I have been doing some thinking (that was the burning smell) and have an idea (again, probably read it somewhere else first). As UFC events are not "seasonal" like baseball, basketball, and the like (as mentioned below), the grouping by year may not be the best way to go (for the numbered events). What about a UFC 100-109 format? Sticking to a set number of events per article (in this case ten), rather than all events of a given year. The issue with the dated titles is the early years are going to be small (less events per year) while the more recent will be larger (more events per year), as UFC popularity grows, and more events are held per year, I only see this issue compounding. I like the UFC on TV suggestion above, or something similar, this is just a suggestion for the numbered events, and if someone knows where I originally heard this, please post a link, because I am sure I didn't come up with this on my own. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, feel free to disregard my suggestion if it will not help progress the discussion at hand, as I don't want to stall the discussion, but I thought it might be a good format to adopt.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone else brought up the issue on my talk page. I can't find any clarity at MOS, so I would need someone more familiar to pipe in if the consensus agrees to the general structure. However it was broken down, the basic structure would still work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

General Objection

From the view of promoting good design and presentation, this structure has all the elements of a poor one. First, the distinction of where things belong is completely arbitrary. MMA is not a seasonal sport, and there's no real distinction in the sport between where events are first broadcasted, so right from the get go users are confused about how the info is segregated since it follows no logic of the relevant subject. For example, UFC events are sometimes broadcast on free venues after their PPV debut, so how is a user to know that what they just saw is on the other page instead? The only way this could possibly make any sense is that the individual articles don't contain enough stuff so let's just cram them all together so they cross some arbitrary threshold (and by arbitrary I mean only exists in the head of a small minority of editors) of stuff. Second, exactly where info is available to a user is also inconsistent even after they've grasped this poor formatting. Previously, if a user thinks of a card (much like a seasonal sports fan would think of a year, or a team) they can directly navigate there and see what's available instead of sometimes to a page title that bears no relationship to what they're thinking about, all depending on when they had interest and who's been editing/adding information. It also presents a less uniform front for search engines which is probably where most readers come from. Fundamentally, the original format is exactly what everyone with any knowledge (and thereby interest) of the sport would expect, rather than what arbitrary interpretation of rules would dictate.

Given these types of fundamental deal-breaking flaws present in the basic design without even going into details, it's scary to think that it ever made it past first level of committee in the first place. Frankly I can't find any purpose to this new format other than placating the needs of an idle bureaucracy (please argue the case if this is wrong instead of just moving on anyway as has been the custom here). There have been many comments from users actually familiar with subject that it makes zero real world sense and unfortunately this is moving forward without addressing their concerns at all. Agent00f (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved your objections at the bottom instead of in the middle, as it is proper and polite to do so, as to respect the flow of the conversation. Your opinions are noted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, though I wish it were addressed instead of just noted. Originally I thought it was best to put it directly underneath your call for general comments since it's not directly related to the implementation details in the "discussion" area. Agent00f (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, one thing that you may be missing, is that if a all the events of one year are in the same article (say 2012 for instance), and someone types in UFC 143, they are be taken to the section of the 2012 in UFC events that relates to UFC 143 not the top of the article, so they do not have to navigate the page, they will be taken to the section that they are looking for. I don't expect this to change your opinion on the matter, I just want to make sure you understand that they will be directed to the section in question and not just to the top of the page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I took into account redirects in my comment. They make the interface inconsistent for both users and search engines, resulting in less interest from readers and less hits from web search of the exact same info. Given that none of the deletionist contingent here have contested these or any other such concerns, it only provides further evidence that this what they desired in the first place. Agent00f (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I just did a Google search of UFC 143. UFC 143 was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion, and yesterday I created a redirect to the appropriate section in the 2012 article. The first entry in the Google search was the Wikipedia article (under the heading UFC 143), and when I selected it I was taken to the correct section within the 2012 article, so I don't understand what you mean by an inconsistent interface with search engines. Regardless, as I said I didn't expect to change your opinion on the matter, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you would be taken to the appropriate section within the article, which you did. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I explained what I meant to Dennis below, so please read that for a longer explanation. The short of it is that it's not so much the engine cannot find the material, but way the results show up and are sorted. Dennis never replied to the specifics, so I somewhat doubt he has in-depth expertise. Agent00f (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with many actions by many people, which is why I would rather focus on what we do agree with. The omni system works and adds usefulness regardless what other articles exist. It is the safe haven for new or undersourced articles in addition to adding new ways to look at data. Doing them by year is common and within the guidelines here, when you group anything, you have to choose an arbitrary cutoff, this is no different. Agent, I don't find your arguments persuasive, nor your condescending tone in delivering them. Since you see no purpose for this system, and it doesn't depend on individual articles existing or not, your constant calls against "bureaucracy" only distract rather than discuss. As far as search engines, you are mistaken. Search engines are fully capable, and do, deliver results of sections via redirect headers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it's your purpose and priority here to reach a "compromise" between a very small anti-MMA contingent vs. the entire userbase of these pages (and therefore find arguments against the compromise to be axiomatically unpersuasive regardless of their merits). It must be a difficult task given that no one with any understanding of how the sport works can appreciate (a different sort of thing than accept) the changes and the bureaucrats won't be pleased until they live up to their namesake. The main point here is that an argument based on the quality of the user experience (aka the fundamental point of design) should be meaningful to anyone concerned about the wiki user, but unfortunately it's become obvious that's not even on the ranked list of priorities. BTW, this is simply a statement of fact, it's been clarified numerous times and if anyone had a reasoned rebuttal they would've used it by now. As I've already mentioned, sometimes reality paints people in a bad light, and IMO the solution to this is to change the reality so that it doesn't instead of complain about the observation. As for search engines, I'm well aware that they're technically capable of indexing redirect headers, but unless sort algs are intelligent enough to combine user clicks/activity from both sources (which they aren't), it means that resultant rankings will necessarily be lower and inconsistently so between event links. Again, tautologically not persuasive for those unconcerned about end user experience. Finally, in light of all this, this phrase is rather odd: "distract rather than discuss"; to people who actually use these pages, it's the distraction of incessant focus on rules minutia over reality which has prompted champions of usability to leave rather than participate in a administrative charade where their inputs and numbers are ever diminished. I don't blame you for this result since it's the natural systemic consequence of the process involved, but you are at fault for unquestioning support for the process. Agent00f (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I might not know MMA, but I have a high degree of confidence when it comes to search engines, due to my day job. They already weight heavily toward Wikipedia, and give solid results. Go google "UFC 149" for example. The first result is the section in 2012 in UFC events. [8] And that was just the first example I tried. The search engine problem, well it isn't a problem. I appreciate the concern but it is misplaced. This omnibus system isn't meant to replace the existing system, is meant to serve two purposes: 1. Add functionality to the existing system. 2. Preserve data until an article can stand on its own two legs. It isn't required to use the existing system, doesn't change the existing naming system (rather, it depends on it). I understand a degree of paranoia regarding AFDs, but they are already happening. I've gone out on a limb to stop them until we reach consensus here (see yesterday's ANI). I've also privately "communicated" to several people that the AFDs should stop. This IS the best compromise as it doesn't force anyone to do anything. And again, I still think it adds some cool functionality. If the only question is how useful it is, I would say to judge it after it is built, then simply don't use it if you don't find it useful. And the only reason I am here IS about the rules: to find consensus, clarity, and put an end to endless battles over "the rules" at AFD. Otherwise, the battleground at AFD will continue, and data will be lost. The larger community (ie: not the anti- people, not the fans) isn't as convinced as you are regarding the inclusion of much of the individual articles, and I've managed to keep heavier hands from interfering so far, but I have no authority to prevent these AFDs, only my words and the trust of a few people and that can only take us so far. If you don't like my ideas, offer better ones, but a solution must be the goal, not just discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To reply to everything in order:

• Since you didn't reply to what I meant, it's not clear how familiar you are with search engines. User input is generally weighted in the sort (esp near the top), and since UFC2012#149 is not intelligently hashed to the same location as UFC149, dividing a conserved number of user clicks necessarily lowers ranking. This is only offset by the consequence that an aggregate UFC2012 will eventually always be at the top, which is not only confusing to any MMA fan (eg. "F1 June 2010", wtf?). But this is cheating the system by virtue of aggregation, and would likely result in demotion of wiki mma results in general (probably automatically, sometimes manually). For example, to maximize "UFC" search results in the short term, we can simply create a massive UFC page, and google will likely weight their relationship with wiki vs removing the page altogether from their sort. BTW, if you search UFC 143 (vs 149), you can also see the inconsistent title issue already.
• As someone ostensibly familiar with MMA, I really can't see how something so inherently confusing adds functionality. Putting more stuff on one page of course always has the benefit of more stuff on a page, but there's a reason why html was created and very good reasons why they were separate in the first place. Those good reasons are necessarily mutually exclusive to these new supposed good reasons, and if we're designing this for MMA as a sport, it's obvious which to choose.
• I really do appreciate your efforts to stop AfD's (as would all MMA page users), but as stated previously, the problem here is that a very vocal minority of anti-fans can disrupt everyone else with only questionable cause. Now, it would be quite unfair to expect you to personally solve this problem, but it doesn't help retain or restore faith in the process by dismissing this fundamental issue out of hand. IOW, users are more likely to accept change if its presented honestly as the only way to fend off abusive bureaucrats than to cover that up and pretend it's something it's not.
• We talk about transparency, but frankly only the agenda of the page users seem to be open here. For example, I believe there's a very strong argument to the powers that be that when a cohesive collection of useful pages already exists (ie contributed by many people, used by many people), it makes no sense to have to protect individual elements from what's basically loophole vandalism. I have trouble believing that this situation is unique to MMA, and thus precedent should exist for protecting a page group whose value as whole is greater than sum of parts.
• More specifically, subjects like US constitution have a sidebar "This article is part of the series:United States Constitution", and I suspect random editors can't simply arbitrarily ask to delete any of the entries. And thus I've presented a "solution" of sorts: help find a way with whomever you're consulting with to set up a similar arrangement to defend the collection as whole instead of piecemeal as we've been doing. Put another way, either MMA and UFC in particular is a worthwhile wiki subject or it's not. If it is, it makes no sense at all that we have to significantly compromise the way this subject is best presented just so that each key component is safe. From yet another angle since this argument is key: people come to trust wiki because they've come to know that it provides an authoritative reference on a subject and not just a random set of entries. As it was, the linked chain of UFC events constitutes that set/trust for this subject and considering them individual on the part of wiki (for AfD's, etc) is equivalent to trivializing and thus breaking that trust. Unless someone can actually come up with a coherent response to this, we're back at doing it only because it's an acceptable spirit-of-the-rules run around of the initial letter-of-rules run-around. Ball's in your court. Agent00f (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • • To answer your question, I'm extensively familiar with search engines, dating back to well before the existence of Google. It is the primary function of my occupation to be intimately familiar with them. As to whether a Cabal exists to remove all the articles, that isn't exactly a good faith assumption, although your tone throughout the discussion was already indicating this is how you felt, I was just waiting for you to explicitly state so. I've been very clear that future events and articles that aren't sourced would be redirects. MMA articles should be held to the same standard as any other article. Some will be articles, some will not. At least those future and less covered events will still have coverage, and the redirect is just as easy to locate as an article, as I clearly demonstrated below with a search of UFC 149 on Google. At this point, it would seem you want to only be contrary and pick apart every comment and flood the discussion with FUD, to have it die by a death by a thousand cuts, as your opinions are obviously tainted with the assumption of bad faith of others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. If you're going to make accusations, please substantiate them in clear way so they can be replied to. Since you don't seem to be in habit of giving honest or straightforward replies, this likely wouldn't happen. For example, you seem to open the floor to comments, but when comments actually come, you cut them off or ignore any which are not convenient. There isn't a single reply to any relevant issue iterated above (other than the one attempt at argument from authority), so if you want to pass it off as something to do with me even though no one else is getting answers either, that's your personal prerogative but let's be clear it's not substantiated by evidence. I tried pretty hard to attribute all this to reasons other than contempt for the user-base, but you don't seem like a incompetent person and the only one that makes any sense is perhaps you were hoping that once the few remaining non-bureaucrats were driven off a "consensus" will remain. But you are correct about at least one thing: it's been rather impossible to read what transpired and not come away with the impression that a few anti-fans (not you, you simply don't care, note this is different from questions of faith) are abusing the process to achieve personal goals. I know wiki likes to pretend otherwise as a matter of policy, but policy like rules don't dictate reality. I've also provided clear evidence of this before, so please at least respect your integrity enough to not deny it. Finally, just because you can't be straight with others doesn't mean I'll follow in kind, so this is what it comes down to: unless you basically tell all the users that wiki has no other way of handling and protecting a comprehensive set of page as whole without arbitrarily bunching them together to get around loopholes in the rules, they're not going to accept that this is a good faith solution, only at best the convenient one. Agent00f (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A round of applause for Agent00f. The new format is incredibly disruptive and confusing. The editors seem to think that UFC events are not notable and nothing is going to change that. I can only see a power struggle taking place here. Portillo (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the ideas put forth in the fact that they are potentially useful pages in addition to the stand-alone articles. I also like the idea of them being the places where the stand-alones are born. That said, it seems like these omnibuses are keeping people busy, while those who have fervently set out (and please, let's not suspend logic to the extent that we don't acknowledge that at some point it became a CAMPAIGN) to remove the individual articles are just going to continue picking them off while the omnibuses are worked on. UFC 143 is gone as well now. Disappointing indeed. And if anyone finds my comment of a 'campaign' inappropriate, look around. MtKing has had virtually no input here, but continues to lobby to Admins for the closure of individual pages. You know it isn't right, I don't know why you're tolerating it. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, all of your collaboration so far has been to effectively say WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with WP:BURO. Year was chosen as the classification to figure out how to group the articles. Yes we acknowledge that you are opposed to any proposal that does not keep the status quo. I personally have decided to dismiss your objections as you provide no way forward other than to drop back to the status quo. Part of consensus building (which we're trying to do here) is to understand that there will have to be compromises. If you look at the BAMMA series of events you'll see that while I have been previously tarred and feathered as a deletionist of MMA articles, I actually suggested[9] that it might be better to merge all the events together to make it less likely to be AfDed. I followed through once there was a reasonable amount of support to propose a Merge/Redirect. So in summary, please feel free to continue throwing a temper tantrum in the corner, I've decided to ignore your input until you come up to the minimum level of discourse that is expected of all editors by providing positive suggestions Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I've only been complaining is trivially and demonstrably false given that this is being posted in a section whose primary content is well-reasoned arguments as to why the new design is terrible (it's worth noting it also presents an argument as to why some don't take user considerations as real ones). Generally speaking, this is done in the preliminary states of evaluating a plan to determine its value, though in this case it's understandable why it's not considered useful given that the actual goal is to "do something" rather than decide what is best. Or in more familiar terms, the status quo is politically out of the question. More specifically, we could talk about why it makes sense for BAMMA and other tiny promotions whose relatively inconsequential events all fit on one page and other specifics of the subject at hand, but let's not delude ourselves that practical considerations have any place here. It's also notable that when I previously asked what we're "compromising" between, there were no answers forthcoming so it can only be assumed that this word being used to refer to some kind of process which isn't open to inquiry, and that's confusing because it coincides in spelling with the kind that is. BTW, I was under no illusion that an outsider uninterested in rule-based committees could divert this steamroller; it's personally sufficient to register the fact that almost no one using these pages is pleased with the process or the solution and that no one piloting it cares. Provided that this an accurate summary (and it is), I'm honestly not sure what people expect non-bureaucrats to do. Agent00f (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree on your point that we have to decide what is best rather than just "do something". Since the current system is dysfunctional, part of deciding what is best is to consider what we can do to fix it, however. This at the core of the current proposal, as it doesn't depend on throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is instead to the side of the current system, simply acting as a failsafe with added benefits. That is why it is a compromise. Even if all articles are kept, this proposal doesn't diminish them and only enhances. Even if all the articles were deleted, this system would be the failsafe. These are both highly unlikely scenarios, but even at the extremes, this proposal serves the purpose of preserving data while adding functionality that is optional to the end user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• One extra note: Technically, since this isn't changing the current articles in any way, a consensus isn't even required. There is no policy restriction holding me back, and the previous, multiple speedy keep decisions for 2012 UFC demonstrate that. I could simply go and create these articles and they would stand up to scrutiny quite easily. The reason I don't is simple: That isn't my style and wouldn't be fair to you guys. I want everyone to grab a hammer and pitch in, and build this new system themselves, in a style and design of their choosing, and finally offer a failsafe solution that is both effective and sensitive to the needs of both the larger community and MMA fans both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, while I understand your frustrations, as well as Hasteur's, I think you are missing the point. Nobody is trying to steamroll this through, when it became apparent that following the Wikipedia guidelines were not in the best interest of anyone involved, we all stepped back to look at the process and talk about things,and as has been stated, build a consensus. Wikipedia does have policy and it also has bends and breaks and exceptions to it, it is not the Brittanica, but the community that values Wikipedia as a whole over single sections, have developed consensus on what those policies and guidelines should be to keep us encyclopedic in the "Wikipedia" way.

Im only speaking of my opinion in this statement, but I think part of the problem is you see how wikipedia has had a section built as an MMA wiki might be as an extremely useful tool for fans of MMA. The problem with that is it doesn't follow the guidlines of what a wikipedia should be to maintain at least some value as an accurate sources of reference for educational,professional and research endeavors. Part of that means trimming single articles across all topics to a certain level,excluding things based on verifiability and notability,etc. No one disputes that the single page on UFC as an org far surpasses the requirements for notability, or that some UFC events deserve a single article. The problem is, almost none of them are written with any prose to explain their significance to meet notability, are created before the events happen, Have an increasingly high number of matches(like football or soccer or basketball), and often things need to be reorganized to ensure their long term viability in the encyclopedia.

Hit counts and arguments about how useful the status quo is to fans, aren't sufficient arguments to keep the status quo. If that kind of tool is that valuable, someone should start an MMAwiki and have advertising like the other MMA fan sites. Honestly I would encourage someone to do that regardless from the arguments about how useful the particular format is. I am sure and deleted content could be made available.

What I really wish is that someone as passionate as you could try and work withing the frameworks that consensus is built upon, and help the editors make better choices if you don't want to grab a hammer yourself. The solutions may not meet your ideal, but there won't be a solution to things like your chronology issue if you can't stop thinking about how much you hate this and start thinking about ways to fix it.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To be very clear I do not dispute that some individual pages as they exist now might not met strict standards, but the point that's been ignored is that this is simply due to an unfortunate way in which wiki limits the organization of content. Or perhaps more accurately, the problem is that the ideal formatting for ufc events just happens to open itself up to institutional vandalism. In a sense, all we're really arguing over at this point is how to re-organize (or more accurately, how to see in a new manner) the same data to avoid that problem or get around the static page/entry limitation depending on the perspective. This is not what is frustrating, because that's either a matter of coming up with a wiki-centric solution (ie. whatever their general guideline is for protecting a inherently connected set of pages) or failing that a very straightforward design process.

What is frustrating though is that Dennis understands what this mean given his supposed background, but refuses to acknowledge the reality of it because frankly it's insulting to the intelligence of the anti-editors. Otherwise this would be done in a logical way (ie consistent with how design is generally done, not built from citing arbitrary rules written for unrelated subjects) and people wouldn't be complaining about a charade of a process. Instead the decision making is deliberated obfuscated and actual design discussion outside of very narrow boundaries is discouraged. Perhaps this is being done for good reason to avoid pissing off a couple of folks on the other end of the "compromise", but that's beside the point. What's perhaps most infuriating is that's it's blatantly obvious at least some of the people some of time are not acting in good faith, but rather than avoiding bad faith by addressing the issue, even if it's uncomfortable, we just move on with hidden agendas and nobody really trusts anything even if they're forced to grin. If we're to approach this realistically, between choosing to insult the intelligence of one side or the other (either the anti-fans for being so trivially placated or the fan that this is a "design" process), it's probably more important to have the people who are still interested in the subject remain around. Agent00f (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on the following stand alone articles that are part of a yearly series; 2012 OEC Kaohsiung, 2012 Indy Grand Prix of Alabama, 2012 China Open.Ppt1973 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Perhaps I'll take a look at those to apply the inclusion rubric, but that's not pertinent to this discussion. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What the hell, I'll bite. 'Delete all as lacking secondary sources to prove notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Getting back on topic, what makes this so different is that we are tying to do something different than other sports have done, while remaining within the guidelines and serving the reading public well. What we are trying to do hasn't been done in the way that we are doing it, which is why we are starting a bit from a blank slate. MMA is different than other sports, which is why a custom solution is needed. And yes, some articles are going to get deleted regardless of what happens in this discussion. The entire purpose of this discussion to make sure that the information isn't lost and in those case, is instead preserved. It is better to have some information in a lesser preferred format that completely gone. And it won't affect any article that can stand up to regular criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #4

(EC) Agent00f, as I look over the bottom half of this talk page you have made repeated calls to the "anti-MMA" folks to respond. I think you are referring, in part, to me even though I started working with the MMA WikiProject four years ago and have done a lot to improve articles and fight vandalism primarily on MMA articles in my time as an established editor. I have not responded and am still very hesitant to respond now, because in the last two months I have had to endure personal attacks, harassment, outings, and off-wiki calls to find out who I am in real life. The "pro-MMA" folks (and yes, I intentionally made that over generalization to hopefully point out that doing so as you have done is incorrect) have turned this situation into a toxic, non-constructive battlefield where discussion hasn't been wanted but rather that the "evil 3" (as Hasteur jokingly called us) should simply leave. But you didn't ask for explanations why some of us are not participating you wanted explanations on our reasoning of what started this course of action.
For a number of years, I have commented that MMA event articles are subject to deletion for a number of reasons. "Articles about notable [sporting events] should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Currently, the vast majority of MMA event articles appear to contain only "routine news coverage of such things as [fight] announcements [and] sporting [results].". You may complain about bureaucracy, but it's here for a reason. These guidelines I, and others, cite are here to provide well written, informative articles for everyone, not just MMA knowledgeable people. With the exception of UFC 94 and UFC 140, if someone with little to no knowledge of MMA visits an event article, they will have no chance of understanding the significance of what is going on.
UFC 125 is an event I picked at random. If you read it, you see there were apparently a lot of changes to the fight card. However, there is nothing to suggest why this event was important. An uninformed reader can easily over look that there was even a championship match at the event. That this championship match was part of a series of bouts between two fighters that even today is questionable which of the two came out on top of after the series of fights and rematches they had.
Anyhow, so MMA event articles for non-UFC promotions are deleted all the time for this reason. UFC articles have been put up at AfD off and on over the years and this time, they started getting deleted a number at a time for the reasons I explained above. The omnibus article was proposed for two main reasons. One was to preserve information about deleted MMA events in a form that may be more palpable to deletionists. It also serves as a way of discussing the significant aspects of each event in a time period. By doing so it would try to establish the potential notability of individual events but it would certainly establish the notability of the events as a group and their inter-relatedness. No one, that I can recall, has said individual event articles cannot exist on the whole. Rather, individual event articles need to contain something other than fight results and a few sentences discussing all the changes to the fight card; an individual event article need to be able to assert why it is notable on its own. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I suppose it's not meaningful for me to apologize on the behalf of anyone else, but I do feel bad you were personally victimized regardless of the quality of your argument. I can however apologize for being repetitive and state again that I never disagreed with the letter-of-the-rules arguments on some of the articles. My point has always been that looking at this as only unrelated articles instead of parts of a cohesive set is an myopic view of wikipedia in general, and this point is evidenced by the fact that once they're slapped together even in nonsensical manner it's magically wiki-worthy with no additional work necessary. IOW, it's simply a matter of organization, and thus it makes no sense that the bureaucracy prefers (or dare I say allows) one design over another for reasons unrelated to design. "Because the rules say so" is a terrible reason to pick an inferior format over the logical one even if the rule were design-specific. If the power that be simply acknowledge the executive decision is that this bullshit decision is mandatory as a necessary feature of wiki house law as it pertains to MMA-like subjects, I think people would take it a lot better than lying to them about the point of the process (ie since it's more reconciliation to a done deal than problem-solving).

On "anti-fans", please understand that capitulating to this kind of political nonsense is functionally equivalent to hating on the MMA userbase of wiki who find the data quite useful. Enabling isn't philosophically as bad as doing it, but that's a distinction without a real world difference. Agent00f (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

After reading through pages of painstaking discussion, I'm still vague on why we should use an omnibus system. So far, the only arguments in favor of such a system are: 1: It follows Wikipedia policy -> ie "It's the rules"; and 2: Prevents info from being deleted when individual pages get flagged for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policy -> ie "It's the rules"

So is there any argument for deleting individual pages and using the omnibus system that does not involve pointing me to the various Wikipedia policy pages? Unless I'm missing something, I haven't seen anyone make the argument that the omnibus system is -better-, and plenty of people listing reasons why it's worse. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is better for the simple reason that it means WP covers all UFC events rather then just the ones that have enduring notability (as defined not by MMA fans but by WP policies). Mtking ^(edits) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your reply is exactly what I was pointing out: The omnibus idea came about because of "WP policies" and its subsequent application to MMA pages. Is there any reason to prefer the omnibus system -besides- WP policies? Or let me put it in another way: What would the merits/benefits of the omnibus system be if people (you?) -hadn't- started flagging UFC pages for deletion? 75.101.47.18 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What as opposed to not covering them at all ? WP has policies and procedures that are there to guide what as an encyclopaedia it covers, WP does not purport to cover everyone or everything. For example I could write a bio page on myself, I could provide sources to confirm education, employment and recreational items listed, it would be interesting to some (not many I grant you) but it would be deleted probably within 2 hours of posting it and defiantly within 7 days as I do not meet the bar that WP has set for including bio's; I could argue what harm does it do, it is all true and all verifiable, but it would still get deleted. The same goes for these MMA events, the WP bar for events (is detailed both in WP:NOT and WP:EVENT) is what it is, if MMA fans do not like that, arguing here about that bar can not change the bar, all we can do here is work out how to apply that bar to allow WP to cover MMA events. The argument that we keep them as they are is going to lead to the situation over time where the information on MMA gets wittled down to only those select events that demonstrate enduring notability and nothing else, the omnibus system is better as it allows for all events to be covered in the one article, with those events that do demonstrate enduring notability covered in there own article. Searching for "UFC 165", either on Google or WP will get you to the part of WP that covers that event. Mtking ^(edits) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This argument makes the giant logical leap that Wiki entries are simply isolated articles to be considered individually when one of the most compelling reasons why people use it is that it's become a fairly comprehensive collection of intrinsically related material that users can reasonably expect to contain in aggregate what they're going to be curious about. For example, it would make the linked chain of UFC events much less useful if arbitrary ones are missing. The bureaucrats here of course also acknowledge this given that they will readily accept the exact same info only organized in a worse way, rather than forcing the deletion of previously inadequate sub-entries, even though there's no functional difference except all the baggage that comes along with terrible design.

That is also why I said that the users will not approve of this decision unless all other methods of protecting the set of pages as whole have been exhausted. What's being forced on us is a ridiculous solution, but people will accept ridiculous solutions if it's the least worst alternative. This is exactly why I asked Dennis (or anyone with decision making power) to certify that wiki technically cannot produce a better way of organizing page sets or dealing with them in general, because being honest enough to admit this (if it's true) would at least reconcile it to the "shitty executive decisions that you have to live with" bin. I also offered suggestions but my knowledge base of wiki features/history is not sufficient to ensure that they are coherent (and as an honest person I fully admit this instead of asserting incoherent solutions on topics I know nothing about), however you can read Denni's reply where he acts as the voice of the bureaucrat team instead of a neutral party who at least tries to look out for user interests, so that's a dead end. Put another way, the users are essentially being told it's not a rigged design process as long as they agree with the terrible design being handed down. At some point one has to decide that participating in a sham only lends it credibility, and it took me longer than many to grasp this. Agent00f (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, Trey, King, et al. I withdrew my AfD's for the UFC pages that failed not only WP:GNG/MMAevent, but WP:FUTURE to help facilitate a compromise , and work towards making this encyclopedia better. When do we move past users with the attitude of WP:IDONTLIKEPOLICY and WP:NONEOFTHERULESAPPLYTOTHISBECAUSEILIKEITTHIsWAY and forward with ones like UDAR who are willing to help make this work.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already been long decided that user input doesn't matter, so why pretend anything needs to be done now? You claim to "disagree" with what I've said, but given there are zero rebuttals of many many factual claims, it can only be deduced that daring to speaking out was instead "disagreeable" rather than a response related to actual content. BTW, the users here would assume good faith more often if they didn't get burned so much for it; we can start assuming good faith again when people actually show some. Agent00f (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are under the mistaken belief that this project can choose to unilaterally change established WP inclusion criteria in a self serving way, it can't. So you have a choice, you can either work within the existing inclusion criteria, or dig your heals in insist on an article per event and accept that WP's MMA coverage will have gaps in as article after article gets deleted. Mtking ^(edits) 04:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The law doesn't need to be changed; just like law in the real world, precedence to interpret it in an intelligent instead of rigid/literal way can be set. As much as it's the bane of bureaucracy, a spirit of the rules does exist. The opposing opinion here is that a dictated dogmatic interpretation will always be granted priority as matter of course, and even then I very clearly stated that users would go along with terrible decisions as long it's clearly demonstrated there are no better alternatives to bureaucratic stupidity. That's what compromise is, and this is what acting in good faith means: being minimally forthright instead of insulting our intelligence by pretending a worse format created to run around the literal interpretation is some kind of design process. Agent00f (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason "article after article" gets deleted is because you have lobbied for their deletion repeatedly. I don't mean to be rude, but what you say feels like "do what I say or watch me delete your articles". 76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not me saying it, have you read the closing comments at the AfD's, the page after page of comments at ANI, the 300k+ worth of comments here, it is admins and other established editors saying it, loud and clear take for example User:Black Kite when they said Wikipedia's policies clearly say that routine sports reporting falls clearly under WP:NOT.; I could give other examples, but what's the point as you can't or won't change your position on this will you ? Mtking ^(edits) 04:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: A. Weren't you the one who flagged (many of) the articles for deletion in the first place? You could just have left them alone (or improved them!), policy or not. And B: There is no consensus among the admins either considering they didn't follow your lead in your attempt to delete UFC142.76.103.153.126 (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No 76.103.153.126, that's just "good faith" in action: blame administrative decisions for your own free actions. Agent00f (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's most frustrating to me aside from the fact that Agent00f should be blocked for his disruptive comments, passive aggressive attacks, and assuming bad faith. There was real progress being made here, until he decided to try and bog everything down with WP:IDONTLIKEPOLICY rants.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this member also laid out similar baseless accusations on my talk page. I would respond to each accusation again but he clearly shows bad faith at every turn given he never replied with anything of substance or specific even when explicitly prompted; no assumption is necessary here. Also worth pointing that it's equally bad faith if not terrible logic to blame a general lack of interest from other users who've been burned on me. I do not control their actions, nor do I have any power over the process as abundantly demonstrated. Perhaps the problem here is that this member doesn't know how "assumptions" work or the idea of "good faith". That last statement is not passive aggressive btw, he literal does not seem to understand those words which might be what's leading him/her to make these claims; this is a good faith assumption. Agent00f (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #5

I think it is time to move this on to a proposal which can be put to a RfC, we have clearly two editors in the SPA of Agent00f and the IP 76.103.153.126 who are here to defend the single article format and are not willing to consider the alternatives and all they are doing at this time is filibustering any progress towards a clear proposal. It is therefore time to accept they will never be convinced of the merit in the omnibus format but that should not stop progress on this matter and of course they are free to oppose any RfC that comes out of this discussion. Mtking ^(edits) 05:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We can only hope that blatant lying is as covered by wiki code as the not assuming good faith that's always being trotted out. I've laid out very clearly, include in direct reply to Mtking, that this is a terrible but marginally passable solution as long as it's declare by someone with authority (ie not Mtking) that there are no other methods in wikidom to resolve the issue of institutional vandalism against cohesive article sets. There was no attempt at all to act on these legitimate concerns or even reply to them; at all. By pretending these events never occurred it provably demonstrates extremely bad faith. Please recall all these comments mentioned are recorded above for factual posterity and are not subject to deletion. If the process can dismiss good clear arguments out of hand, it seems in bad faith to call it "consensus" given that only one party is necessary anyway. However, in the spirit of compromise we should continue the charade so long as the participants start accurately calling it "ruling by dictat" instead of "consensus". Agent00f (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

to quote "but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion." it continues "The key to dealing with a filibusterer is to point out that they're filibustering and to ignore them.", so consider it pointed out...... Mtking ^(edits) 07:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that focusing on the facts of the case are an intellectual game to Mtking, because it's not to those of us who are serious about this matter and take an interest in this subject beyond playing petty authoritarian. Note that Mtking has attempted to cleverly weasel out of replying seriously to a serious comment while playing the victim. This exemplifies seriously bad faith, and unfortunately this behavior has has been the norm. For example, 76.103.153.126 above also points out the lie when Mtking pretended to care about retaining article info when he's been strongly pushing to delete them regardless of whether another solution exists. No response to this serious allegation of blatant dishonesty as expected, yet such an untrustworthy editor remains one of the key players and proponents in this process.

It's not controversial to claim that "assume good faith" is not equivalent to "axiomatically assume good faith", iow assume it until evidence exists to make a good determination either way. Given the abundant display of atrociously terrible faith that's been acted out in this thread, it's no wonder that only the worst actors are still left to push it onward after most all the initially numerous page users have left in disgust. Agent00f (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Before we continue, I would like to restate what I wrote above, since I never did get a proper reply to it. The reason I am asking for this is that Dennis Brown implied he would get around to giving me "a proper reply" so but the conversation surged far forward and away and that didn't happen. To restate, when Dennis Brown fairly asked what a proper solution might be, I replied: "Honestly, I think very few of the users or editors who generally created, maintained or read the MMA articles had any egregious problems with them in the first place (and without anyone being "sanctioned" that I can recall as long as they followed the established format). That's the problem. The MMA wiki project and format has been well-established for several years. There are a few things that few contributors to those articles would terribly object to (the removal of entrance-music lists, for example), but those things are completely trivial compared to what has been proposed. This is why people need to know why these are actual "problems" not protected under Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar: "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." These were/are informational articles with a uniform format, a solid and well-established community that would maintain them and protect them from vandalism, and would resolve internal formatting disputes on their own, and were pages with considerable popularity, and the articles existed in such a way that they helped those interested in the sport have a deeper understanding of it and its history, and those who were looking for specific historical information in MMA find their answer, while being generally and inherently satisfying to their userbase. The result is that absolutely no one is happy with the current situation. There are compromises people have put on the table that I could personally live with, but it is absolutely fair to ask what purpose the current action against the MMA Wikipedia Project serves beyond satisfying bureaucracy in and of itself, when Wikipedia is explicitly not a bureaucracy." Beansy (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry if your question got lost in the flood. There are a couple of problems that I'm trying to address. One of them is that several of the articles don't pass criteria and if they go to AFD, they will and have been deleted. Agree or not, it is the reality we have. It is better to keep the info somewhere than to simply lose it. Another problem is future events. When someone creates an article on future events, it is almost always deleted. I can quote you all the reasons, but i doesn't matter, 99% of the time future events don't pass criteria, so ends up happening is a big drama fest AFD. Until recently, no one paid much attention to the MMA articles, so all the articles went rather unnoticed, but many were short of criteria all along. Once everything exploded in the drama fest that was a series of AFDs, the larger community took notice and started saying "well, some of these don't pass criteria". The simple fact is, the genie is out of the bottle. There is no "going back to how it was", there are too many eyes on it. Hell, at my Request for Admin, there was a larger than average turn out and it was one of the topics often covered was my involvement here. Trust me, there are many, many eyes on this, they just aren't talking, and glad to have me try to sort this mess out instead. I've already had to make several gestures to get people to delay AFDs, including at ANI, but patience is wearing out. All articles on Wikipedia have to conform to a set of established guidelines and policies. This is not different than UFC itself. There are "rules", of sorts. Wikipedia may not be a bureaucracy, but it isn't anarchy either. There is some bureaucracy here, there has to be. Established procedures for dealing with disputes like WP:ANI and WP:DRN are purely bureaucracy, so lets not kid ourselves. I'm trying to not get bogged down with it, but rather apply the good parts of bureaucracy (ie: the guidelines that insure we all play by the same rulebook), and apply some common sense and flexibility (create something new that hasn't been done, that will protect info and preserve the current naming conventions). Like it or not, change is coming, and it isn't by my choosing. If at some point I decide that I can no longer help here and back away, the alternative isn't going to be as patient. If the wider community feels like this project is not going to happen and I'm wasting time, then I will have lost the ability to persuade them to hold off on sending stuff to AFD. Remember, I have NO authority except the power of my words here, backed up by progress they see here. Being an admin gives me no authority to force someone to withdraw an AFD. Then you might actually see something that looks like bureaucracy, as there are plenty of people in the wider community that think I am wasting my time and we should just let it all go to AFD and hash it out there. And more drama would happen. If the MMA community takes an "all or nothing" approach, that is a big risk that I don't see coming out very well. I don't think you are, you seem entirely reasonable. But in a nutshell, there are many eyes on this, so the problems can't be ignored. Either the problems can be solved here, or by the outside. I prefer that we try to let the MMA community try to solve the problems, as that is more likely to produce a result they like, but in the end, We are here to build an encyclopedia, which means consistency, and MMA events are but one part of it. I'm trying to offer solutions and acknowledge and comply with the concerns of the MMA community, but at some point, the MMA community has to say "Ok, we don't like some of the guidelines, but I admit I can see where some of these articles come up short. Lets find a way to bridge the gap". Fortunately, many already have and are trying to help here. My guess is that you will, too, even if you have some legitimate questions and concerns along the way. Nothing wrong with that at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter can we at get a clue as to what the boundaries of omnibus design are? Far as I can tell we're just cramming stuff into pages until someone's imaginary threshold is met. For example, kelapstick's proposal of 10 events per page makes more sense than an annual division if only because it's not as ridiculously crowded, but it's all a rather precarious setup when splintering off more substantive events risks AfD on the rest. If we're actually serious about "try to let the MMA community try to solve the problems", I think most users would prefer that people who came into this with the desire to delete the subject should limit their input to avoid conflict of interest. Related to this, is there an inherent wiki benefit for protection of sections within pages, or are we just assuming good faith that at least the detractors won't strike again? BTW, I've taken the time to read the admin resolution board for MMA matters and you are undisputed correct that the local opposition to the subject don't even rank among the extremists. Agent00f (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In a curious but not altogether unexpected turn of events, the user Hasteur, who AFAICT is not an admin, has also taken to threatening me on my talk page. This seems to the preferred option by one side of the disagreement here for settling disputes instead of discussing issues in the open. "lack of good faith assumptions" indeed. Agent00f (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC):

:Final Warning regarding disruptive editing and lack of good faith assumptions

This is your final warning. Stop Filibustering, posting long diatribes regarding the unfairness, bureaucracy of wikipedia, entire arguments that the status quo for MMA articles "doesn't hurt anything", and deliberately attempting to derail the consensus process. The next posting you make on WT:MMANOT that strays into any of these realms, I will open a filing on the Administrator's Noticeboard asking for an outside Administrator to evaluate your posts in the context of "building a collaborative encyclopedia" to determine if sanctions (up to and including Topic banning you from all MMA related articles,blocking you from editing any wikipedia article,or banning you from the site entirely). This is not a threat, I am simply illuminating what the next step will be in the process. You've been warned my me, by other editors, and by an admin who is somewhat involved in the discussion. Please consider modifying your behavior as it is currently unacceptable. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So, is it the policy of wiki for editors to continuously make arbitrary accusations without evidence? I've asked for substantiation of any of these charges, but none has been forthcoming, so I'm puzzled as to why you believe them to be true. It's also notable that list of "banned by Hasteur" topics is currently what's under discussion at the MMA omnibus page, so the request is to essentially voluntarily ban myself from the conversation, or else. Look, I don't doubt that you have more pull with perhaps some other insiders that you've come to know in the past, but please consider how this kind of behavior reflects on your peers when one party to a "consensus" takes to threats to prevent the other side from participating. Agent00f (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me clear up one point for you Agent. Admins don't have any more authority than non-admins in this area. As an admin, the only difference between me and you is that I have a set of tools that allow me to take action when needed and the wider community has decided that I can be trusted with them, but my voice is no more important than anyone else's, and Hasteur's voice is no less important that any admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's evident from the tone displayed by Hasteur, Mtking, etc that some editors feel more equal than others. Agent00f (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some editors are more constructive than others, perhaps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It aids constructiveness when questions and very well reasoned and sourced arguments aren't just ignored out of convenience if not routinely threatened. Agent00f (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have striked a out of context reposting of my appropriate and justified warning on Agent00f's talk page. We (those editors who are collaborating) have tried on multiple occasions to explain why Agent00f's actions are not appropriate. Part of being in a community is you have to follow the community's guidelines in terms of basic structure, posting, civility, etc. We have warned Agent00f multiple times about assuming good faith, yet all we are presented with is continues assumptions of bad faith and cries of "rules for rules sake". I did not threaten you with banning (I do not have the toolset), I simply informed you what the next step in the process would be if you didn't come into conformity with the behavioral guidelines really quickly. The fact that you've responded negatively and are striking out at a user whom the community has chosen to entrust with additional functionality (Dennis Brown) suggests you're not here to do anything but cause disruption. Your next posting here should be an apology to all the editors whose time you've wasted or you and I will take a trip to a forum of larger consensus (Administrator's Noticeboard) to see if sanctions are appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's more ironic, threatening others with "assumptions of bad faith" if they don't leave all the while claiming it's not a threat, racketing up the demands and drama they supposedly seek to avoid when the threats are laid bare for the world to see, or that this is mainly a response to a call for more honest discussion. BTW, can I get a link to these "multiple explanations" referenced above that I must've missed so I can prepare an appropriate defense? I asked for it before but you must've missed the request. Agent00f (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[10]

[11]

[12]

There are your repeated warnings. I could probably find more by parsing the intermediate text, but these are the primary ones prior to the final warning I delivered Hasteur (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was looking for explanations rather than hollow accusations. Anyone can throw arbitrary lists together like "not assuming 2+2=5", but it's another thing to make them evident. Agent00f (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO LEAVE You offer no constructive ideas, no support for compromise or consensus, you simply make statements about how logical this is, and illogical that is, all well written yet completely framed outside the idea of an encyclopedia, much less wikipedia policies.

Any reasonable person, who is neutral can come and read your contribs and see that this discussion was moving towards compromise and at least working towards a common goal,until you decided to disrupt the process over and over again. Your are guments are full of things that cannot coexist with WP:WhatWikipediaIsNot, WP:GNG, WP:AAGF, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Look anyone in an adversarial position is going to on occasion make statements that aren't inline with assuming good faith. But every comment for the past 5 +/-20 have had blatant assumptions of bad faith.

Again, NO ONE IS SAYING YOU SHOULD LEAVE although at this point, it certainly is BE CONSTRUCTIVE,OFFER IDEAS OTHER THAN THE STATUS QUO OR MOVE ONNewmanoconnor (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO LEAVE". Really? Did you bother to read Hasteur's latest threat right above or do need a neutral party? I've also already explained in detail why assumptions are no long necessary when empirical evidence is readily available, so it really helps to read what others are saying, otherwise you're not going to be on the same page. Anyway, I'm sorry that the many substantive arguments offered above don't meet your definition for "encyclopedic" since they certainly make sense in the context of wiki as evidence by the omnibus page itself (same stuff, different format). It's generally difficult to make good decision without requisite knowledge of what is being decided, and willfully ignoring broader context isn't help here. Also consider that Wiki is the way it is today because of way that it met user needs, not because the latter were somehow crammed into a dictated box a la Britannica. It's furthermore very difficult to be constructive when power is mostly wielded by a small clique who concoct the plan outside public view and then present it as an inviolable framework. Agent00f (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Or put another way, if you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Everyone has been welcomed with open arms to be part of the solution, including Agent. Simply taking a contrary position to every offered solution without ever offering your own solution, is not constructive, it is obstructive, and stretches the limits of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can all see it was us (the AfD clique) vs them (unwashed MMA masses) from the start, but if we're talking about good faith, it's hard to maintain a straight face when the inviolable plan is mostly the former's. It's also curious you say "been welcomed with open arms to be part of the solution" when you've ignored the ominibus-relevant comments in reply to your longer post right above. (btw they were posted many hours ago but unfortunately lef unsigned, check the record to verify if need be) Agent00f (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OPPOSE OMNIBUS CONDITIONALLY SUPPORT NOW, SEE BELOW I wasn't around for the the AfD's on UFC 140 and 143. The admins who closed them, with deletions, made comments that made sense, although in one case in the unusual move of deleting despite closing as "no consensus." In the UFC 146 AfD, I have shown (I just wrote it) secondary sources of prose discussing events surrounding UFC 146, that is not just stats, dates, names, etc. WP:SPORTSEVENT only covers those things as it is written. As it is written, it does not say anything like, "If the secondary prose is just the kinds of storylines you can find as a lead-up to any sports event, then that's still routine, and doesn't past muster." although those in favor of the deletions and an omnibus article here are interpreting it that way. And they have a point, because such previews are commonplace, and it does seem to be covered more specifically in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The problem with an interpretation that goes beyond the strict lettering of WP:SPORTSEVENT and includes normal secondary media coverage of storylines leading up to and following the event is it's not consistent with how other sporting events are covered in Wikipedia. Did anything truly memorable, a permanent place in history occur at the1969 Sandlapper 200 or the 1989 Hopman Cup or even the 1977 NBA Finals? No...but they do have the secondary prose coverage (apparently...I haven't checked). Many, many, many, MANY sporting events in many sports are just considered notable on its face in Wikipedia, whether or not anything really unusual or memorable happened in them, and the notability of UFC events (leaving aside other MMA promations for the moment) cannot be said to be less than a great many of those events. And before anyone trots out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, let me do that myself as I did in the UFC 146 AfD: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." One of the themes of that essay is "other stuff exists" makes a lousy standalone argument, but in conjunction with other legitimate arguments may be valid and important for the sake of consistency. That's what I am trying to establish here. Secondary prose from major media non-MMA sources exists for every single UFC event, that standard is good enough for the vast majority of sporting events on Wikipedia even if the secondary prose is not of memorable consequence, and so my position is that every UFC event should have a standalone article. If existing UFC events are lacking said secondary-sourced prose, it should be added and the article improved, not deleted. I am sorry my side of this coin is beset by meat puppets and questionable civility, but hopefully that won't unduly influence anyone focusing on the crux of the debate. Mreleganza (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• The omnibus system doesn't require that other full articles be removed. It is ancillary to them, additional. That point keeps getting lost for some unknown reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mreleganza i will be more than happy to help with the inline citations and even writing the prose into the articles, but you're going to have to provide them from these sources, I can't find any myself. I do wonder if EVERY UFC event is notable, that sounds a bit concerning, but I truly wish someone would help write even one into a prosaic page that demonstrates lasting significance and continuous coverage. Though it's also worth pointing out this is not a vote on whether an Omnibus is a good system.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Thank you for your opinion. WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable. Other articles in other sports are not of debate. This is about MMA articles and how we can reconcile their current existence with the policies and guidelines of en.Wikipedia. IF the article is sufficiently notable and sourced (as judged by a neutral good faith editor) then the article remains just that, an Article. If a neutral good faith editor comes in and does not see the notability and sources necessary, they are within their rights to nominate for one of multiple processes (including merging/redirecting and deletion). The Omnibus system allows us to merge and redirect the content to a new article that has more viability at surviving various WP processes and does allow for the article to be spun back out if/when there is enough appropriate content. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I just want to add that all the talk about what *might* happen to an article is distracting. The fact is, the omnibus system is separate. If every single article on MMA is kept as is, it will not affect the omnibus articles. It won't change the content, the usefulness or the policy behind implementing them. I think it would be helpful if we moved forward from that presumption. Decisions as to what individual articles do or do not belong are NOT the function of this MMA notability page, and are outside the scope, and at this point, a distraction. PRODs and AFDs are also unhelpful right now as they are fueling the fires and making the work harder for some of us. No reason to address further comments whether the omni is good or bad. After it is built, if someone wants to nominate it for deletion at AFD in good faith, they can at that time, I am not concerned as to the outcome. For now, we just need to focus on what everyone thinks is the best way to design it. If people want to say how bad it is and don't want to help build it, fine, you can use my one line quote above and simply move on. We need less verbosity about this unrelated issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, Dennis Brown. Considering the omnibus concept in a vacuum, and with the assumption that it will have no impact on the viability or lack thereof of invidual event articles, I support it. I do note that it appears many or most of the other supporters do support it as a direct alternative to individual event articles, which I do not endorse per the above. Hasteur, I agree WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, I cited it myself after all. Obviously we don't agree on which way. I repeat, WP:OTHERSTUFF maintains that consistency in Wikipedia is important if it is in conjunction with other factors and that's why, along with those other factors, I find the way other sports are treated are relevant if we are talking about an Omnibus as a replacement for single-event articles as you seem to be doing, although again I tip my cap to Dennis Brown's wish not to have that discussion here and now. Newmanoconnor, I provided those links as they pertain to UFC 146 per your request in the UFC 146 AfD. I note, however, that similar links are already in the UFC 146 article, and I assume you have seen that, and therefore you consider the links in the article (and then most likely the similar links I suggested) also inadequate, and my arguments above have been based on that. But let me not assume anymore, please tell me if the links provided or the links already in the article are adequate in your opinion, and if not, why not. Mreleganza (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair compromise. Dennis, can we get UFC143 and others that have been deleted restored to their original states for the time being while work on the omnibus page (or other solution) is taking place? 75.101.47.18 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • You would need to ask the admin that closed the previous AFD, which is the standard way. I can't do it, and because of my involvement in this building process. It is required that any admin that closes or takes action is "uninvolved", and safe to say, I'm involved here. I can !vote at MMA AFDs if wanted, but I'm pretty sure that I can't ever close them or undelete them. Even if I wasn't involved, I would have to ask the closing admin as not to make it look like I was wheel warring, which can get ME blocked. There are a lot of rules for admins, many, many more than for non-admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Mreleganza and 75 IP: Can we get the guideline/essay out first? That way when we restore the articles with the rationale of pointing at the guideline/essay. We don't want to leave the previously AfDed articles out there where they could be re-nominated for deletion too long. In my mind I'd like to have each one restored for long enough to apply the merge, and then place the redirect. Hasteur (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am oppossed to restoring any deleted UFC events unless someone can provide a draft that dempnstrates notability.We need to see some assistance building the Omnibus and getting notability guidelines hammered out before I would want to see that. Even in that case, I think someone should be provided with the content and build a draft IF it can be shown to be notable.

As far as UFC 146,it still needs more sourcing, and to be written better, there are three sources ESPN,SI,and another in the google search i posted to the AfD. Yes there are TWO other good sources, but the material that cites them is simplistic and routine. I'm not going to save the article alone. 1. I'm not a good story teller and 2. If I can work in a team so can those who were initially opposed to any of this.

I think this needs to be an opportunity to better the MMA section on wikipedia, for me to be wiling to help bend WP:POLICIES around MMA, the other editors/fans are going to have to help.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mreleganza, before offering support based on abstract considerations only, also consider looking at the condition of the 2012 article as it stands in practice. It's horribly unwieldy and it's barely May. If we're going forward with it, the userbase should at least consider alternative organizations that aren't so atrocious. In general, given it's supposed to be a "compromise", it would be best if user actually push back as standard part of negotiation instead of accepting wholesale. That's why I asked where this still imaginary threshold for minimal size is, but that still hasn't been answered. Agent00f (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for minimal size is arbitrary (as arbitrary as my 10 events per page is), it was created as 2012, with all the articles related to events in 2012 in the same article because it seemed like a good idea at the time. It not be the best way to group them, but that is the purpose of this discussion, to come to an agreement as to the best way to format it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it clearly isn't arbitrary, and it's clearly no up to you or I but rather the AfD team. If one event is not notable, then two clearly isn't logically speaking. All we know so far is that a arbitrary year's worth (even if it only has 1 event) is, though. The fundamental purpose of this discussion is what's considered long enough that they won't go AfD crazy again. The MMA userbase will then be smart enough to organize around that hopeful brightline rule. And since this is ostensibly still a "compromise", and not being crammed down our throat (as far as it's public claimed), I suggest actually negotiating instead of taking whatever comes. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• At this point, can we (and by we I mean actual users) get a general idea of why wiki should continue to be used in the future for MMA given that the few guys running the show here seems have no interest in the subject otherwise? What I mean is that all the framework was created with no input from us, and in fact already put into place with no input from us, and all the decisionmaking is mostly done by a largely disinterested party, so when the disinterested parties eventually leaves, what power over how to run the omnibus cluster that remains be retained by MMA contributors? For example, who will vet splittering new entries? This is rather serious given that users have been provide no reason at all to continue investing in this except the basic motivation to see it not disappear. added: ok, I see one person who'll work on it. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am on board with Hasteur's questions if I understandcorrectly - that is, I vouch for my support that we continue to work on the MMA guidelines, and that we proceed with Dennis Brown's plan to start *new* articles in the 2012 in MMA space, and move from there and continue hashing out guidelines - then yes, I for one agree to that. ADDENDUM: While I am in agreement with the suggestions laid out by Dennis Brown thus far, there is still much work to do. For one, I don't think we have built consensus yet on the guidelines for creating standalone articles. I completely agree that each standalone article would need one mainstream secondary (non-MMA site) source of prose previewing and reviewing the event (I'd actually say two is more reasonable, but I'd also say that is easily achievable). The beauty of the 2012 MMA article - and sorry, Dennis Brown, for not really grokking this before - is that it does not at all impede the creation of standalone event articles, which if we can achieve consensus on the proper guidelines for establishing those will keep the MMA hardcore fans happy. Indeed, although I am loathe to nominally be on the same "side" as those who are canvassing, making sockpuppet allegations, and generally not being very civil - I wholeheartedly agree that the way MMA pages worked(well, UFC pages at least) before this spate of AfD's came along was not problematic. Clearly it was problematic to those who nominated the AfD's, who saw a problem with the fact that standalone UFC articles had been created for years and stated creating scads of AfD's. That I think it the crux of the problem we have to tackle next, and I seem to be far apart from MtKing and others on whether prose from multiple mainstream sources previewing and reviewing events and their specific storylines is sufficient to justify creation of standalone UFC event page (as well as other MMA events). I believe it is. If I understand MtKing correctly, that would still not necessarily be sufficient, because such secondary mainstream prose would not necessarily evidence an "enduring" legacy. This needs to be sorted out. I would propose that, in the interim, no AfD's are created (or redirected, yet) by the people involved in this conversation for existing standalone MMA events, be the event upcoming or in the past. My reasoning is that I think the focus should be on trying to save/improve the articles to adhere to the standalone MMA events guidelines we agree on, and AfD'ing them after if they cannot be brought up to our guidelines, rather than deleting them all and then going back to recreate them. Not only do I feel would this way forward would catalyze the improvement of articles already created, but it'd have the added benefit of not enraging tens of thousands of MMA fans who use the articles and then, once they are gon,e come in here and disrupt our attempts at building consensus. Towards that end, I'd also propose that the AfD MtKing created for UFC 146 be withdrawn, although I do not expect he will agree and I'm not going to go to war with him on that in this space.Mreleganza (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I have previously asked someone to remove 9 AFDs [13] and they quickly complied (thank you!). I've made a request at the bottom of this page as well. I haven't looked at the actual articles in question, so it was based solely on my desire to ratchet down the controversy and fix the problems, but we have to in a certain order. We have to get the omni working first. Next, we go to RfC with the criteria issue (we can't go there until there is a omni in place, since it concerns it). Technically, we don't need a consensus to build the omni, but I know that if we do and everyone is on board, it will be easier to get everyone together and agree on criteria considerations. Besides, the omni works independently even if all articles are kept, and would just be the building block and failsafe for new or lesser known events. I can NOT make anyone withdraw an AFD. The only tool I have in this is the strength of my arguments, reinforced by those of you here in the community. I'm not an MMA person, I came as an outsider solely to help move it along, as an objective party, and someone with a great deal of experience at Wikipedia, particularly in dispute resolution. I wasn't even an admin when I started this. Oh, and welcome :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I barely know MTKing and I think he would withdraw the AfD, IF it was fleshed out just a little more with the references from SI and ESPN that remain unsourced and could substantially add to the prose needed. Unfortunately he cannot as there are other comments that endorse the nom, each would have to be withdrawn. However, a merge of the info as is to the OMNIBUS may be better as it fits with the plan going forward, UFC 146 could be moved to a stand alone article when it actually happens, and We may be able to find an admin willing to do that.

I'd prefer that you revise the article further, and then have Dennis close the AfD as no consensus. We ALL agree to leave it up as a gesture of good faith, though it violates WP:FUTURE, and move on. I don't know if Dennis Can or is Willing to do that.Newmanoconnor (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't close AFDs on MMA events because I'm too heavily involved in this discussion. Only uninvolved admins can. Same reason I can't take admin action at the ANI. Admins can only use admin tools in places that they are far removed from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Newmanoconnor I agree that it could be improved, and I will take a stab at it. I also don't think it's really that terrible as is, but as we both have said, that's why we need to keep talking about this. I am tentatively okay with already-deleted articles not being restored, and by the same token (to reiterate) I would like to see no new AfD's go up until we have indeed hammered out these guidelines. Agent00f I am not sure if this answers your questions or not, but as I understand it, truly endorse the model suggested by Dennis Brown for the 2012 in UFC Model (as opposed to a "wholesale" unthinking agreement based on "abstract" principles), and as such, I think its unwieldy state should be worked on and fixed rather than thrown out, just as I think the standalone UFC events that already exist should be improved rather than thrown out. Mreleganza (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

All I asked for for days is some written statement that no better solution to protect page collection was available, but you know how the other side is. Frankly I have no idea why we're being consulted at this point in time considering the atrocious and nonsensical page format is already a done deal in practice. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #6

: Let me be clear about something: I wish everyone would quit nominating articles to AFD for a few weeks. Let us settle the other issues first: 1. the omni system, 2. then the criteria issue which will have to go to RfC. Right now, the AFDs are causing more drama and more drive by problems. It won't kill you to hold off until a consensus is built. You have every right to nominate whatever you want, I'm just asking this as a personal favor. It isn't making my job any easier, or this task. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another note 2012 in UFC events was the prototype for what we are trying to do. It needs refining, but Mt and TG (and many others who helped them) did an amazing job considering all the obstacles. I may disagree with them on some things, but I respect them and know they act in good faith. The ONLY reason we can consider moving forward now is because of these efforts by many different people, and this article allowed us to experiment and refine, try some things, figure out what worked and didn't. Again, the idea on the table isn't MY idea, I just presented my interpretations of YOUR ideas, that were based on this previous work. We fix one thing at a time: 1. Omni, which is a new tools that adds new uses and acts as a place for future events and a fail safe for articles that don't pass criteria (and even if most do, some don't) 2. Clarify the dang criteria at RfC with the larger community, so we all know exactly what the criteria is, and don't have to debate every single article for weeks on end. 3. Create content. After all, we ARE here to build an encyclopedia, and once these two are done, we can get back to actually creating content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm all about part 3! Looking forward to this being over. I'd like to reiterate my thanks to Agent for presenting the end-users' arguments well, and to Dennis for putting so much time into this process. It's all very much appreciated. Kind regards, Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• • @Dennis Brown Three things: I'll start with the one on omnibus design. Look, I could probably live with an omnibus (in the UFC's case, I am amenable to omnibuses done by year, and then additional annual omnibuses by outlet are probably fine; up until 2005, with just one oddball exception, every UFC event was on PPV and so it could just be done by year until then, and non-PPV events were aired exclusively on Spike domestically from 2005-2009, so it only gets more complicated starting 2010). What I can't agree to at all is the idea of removing data in the omnibus for more prose once articles get split off. Really, the omnibuses should be mainly for a quick scan of full event results in the existing tables including method of victory, round, time of round, and any notes of interest (like a "Fight of the Night" bonus, if a fighter failed a drug test afterward, if a fighter came in overweight necessitating a catchweight bout, if it was a championship bout, etc.), as well as event information for which there is an existing infobox, while individual articles should contain more prose with in-depth information. More prose is generally to provide deeper context, and that really ought to be reserved the individual articles, as a deeper context is something that almost all wikipedia articles that split off from an existing article is supposed contain. The raw information should be in both though.

Second: I appreciate your response to my re-statement above, but it doesn't explain why the UFC is specifically undeserving of fifth pillar protection despite everything that's been laid out. The MMA articles were not "anarchy" and I believe I gave enough reasons why. They were long established, uniform, codified, popular, well maintained, and belonged to what is arguably the fastest growing global sport of the last 15 years. Still, I wouldn't have brought that up more than once (that wasn't the first time I brought it up but was previously unanswered), but there are so many other sports that have sporting event articles of equal or lesser significance whose existence has never been challenged, and I believe specific examples have been given repeatedly now. With everything else the MMA Wiki project had going for it, it really does force the question: why MMA is specifically targeted when so many similar types of articles are not?

Third: perhaps we can agree upon at least how far apart we are? Would you consider articles where a new world champion was crowned in the historical top two promotions to be "off the table" for deletion, so to speak? Beansy (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Again, the idea on the table isn't MY idea, I just presented my interpretations of YOUR ideas". I think we're all aware that the process wouldn't be so contentious if the format included input from some users from the start instead of just the AfD team and then presented as something we should love. For example, I'm not sure where the Annual/Season idea came from, but that's pretty obvious it's already vastly overcrowded, yet the page already exists like this to anyone who visits now. We'll see if there's any leeway as promised or whether the omnibus is the final version "as is". BTW, the critical question in "As a practical matter can we at get a clue as to what the boundaries of omnibus design ..." above still has not been answered even though you've taken copious time to attack me on the ANI page to fish for a ban. Agent00f (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If the omni article is so overcrowded, perhaps it'll motivate you and other MMA enthusiasts to do something about it by improving the sections so they can be spun out to individual articles. Of couse this is predicated on the MMA enthusiasts wanting to improve the articles. Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let's not get ahead of ourselves with what might happen later. The clique till now has still been hammering away at AfD's in poor faith so there's no reason to believe their behavior in the future won't continue to change the course of events. In the meantime, in the spirit of good faith, can you help us get some clear answers to what WON'T be AfDed by at least the gang here so we can at least try to approach decisions in a reasonable matter? Agent00f (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think the omni should look like? Or is that not an avenue you're willing to consider? Again, I think it was fine the way it was but an overviewish omni page has potential to be good and useful IMO. My preference to the "limits" of the omni page would be something like this, even though I don't know if we have enough content contributors to pull it off: UFC and other major promotions would each have their own Omni page (like Bellator already does...we would have to figure out which promotions qualify as "major" and then maybe one other one for "2012 in minor/second tier/other/I don't know MMA events.") On the UFC Omni, for each UFC event, including Fox, Fuel, and FX events, there would either be a link to the main article (sort of like how it's done for airline destinations, example http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Royal_Jordanian#Destinations), and for the ones that don't have its own article, a blurb about when and where and any other cursory details, and then a table of results. Mreleganza (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm just trying to get the parameters of what's allowed by whomever is setting the threshold for notability (along with other critical questions above). That is generally how design starts: understand the boundaries and work within that space. I would also suggest users push back somewhat on what's tenable since this is after all still being call a "negotiation", even though Dennis feels people should be banned for even suggesting that there's leeway in a "compromise" (see his comments about "battle" in the ANI). What we've been given is a design (sorted by year) done by people who obviously have no idea how MMA works as a sport, and the unwieldy result is the consequence. For example, compare uf145 to ufc2012, there elements missing from the omnibus like payout which would make it even more ridiculous if they're added (which they should), and year is barely in may. Also note my longish criticism of flaws above. What's interesting is that a list of UFC events already exists which is now also redundant with long omnibuses.

I (and IMO most) would prefer a shorter format, but done with consistence/predictable divisions between pages so that it's easy to find yet manageable. I mean, this is a bunch of work being saddled on users while being decided by others, so we might as well design it as close to what we really want (ie. original) as possible. Agent00f (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Final note

I'm divorcing myself from this bad relationship. No permission is needed to build the omni, it has already stood up to scrutiny and has the support of the community, I just wanted it be a GROUP design decision. This is Wikipedia, you can make any article you want anyway. That point has been made time after time, but some people don't hear very well. I've tried for months to find solutions, dealing with self appointed protectors who haven't taken the time to go back into the archives and see the big picture. I've spent a lot of energy begging people to stop sending stuff to AFD until we can find common ground, but can't do that in good faith anymore. In private, many admins literally called me a fool for trying to help here, calling it a "toxic cesspool", and they were right. My goal was to come in as an outside party, protect the information in one form or another, as part of building an encyclopedia, by bridging "wants" with "encyclopedia needs". Neither side can restraint themselves or have the discipline to even maintain a singular line of conversation long enough for any change to happen, however, and seem to actually enjoy the drama, something I don't want to be associated with. The irony is that the obstructionists joined the party late thinking they were protecting the articles, yet they have shot themselves in the foot, putting more eyes on the situation, making deletions much more likely, not less likely.

Please understand that I'm unwatching this page, so I won't answer questions or even see them here. Please don't leave them on my talk page either, as I won't answer and inclined to just delete them, and I don't want to appear rude, but I'm serious about being "done". I have no more time to waste on this. Game over. If you would rather bicker and fight at AFD, I don't want to know about it, I no longer care. Obviously, my attempts to bridge the two sides have failed and I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Appointing a "sheriff" to shut down the Wild West mentality on this page

As it's been demonstrated that this page has ballooned over 150k in Wikitext in 5 days, I propose that a neutral uninvolved admin be solicited for the purpose of actively monitoring this talk page, warning participants regarding minor violations of the community conduct, issuing blocks/sanctions for repeated violations (or major violations), and guiding us to a future in which MMA articles can be in WP with a reasonable certainty of surviving deletion. Said administrator will apply the community conduct standards as evenly and as fairly as possible. Thoughts?

Dennis suggests we won't be able to find one. Even Anna has left for similar reasons. The situation was good when progress appeared to be made. However, every time someone new jumps into the fray sending the discussion into circles it becomes frustrating for those who have been involved. If you can find another admin good luck. But, unfortunately, there always seems to be someone hijacking the process. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion derailers will be treated just like any other disruptive editor, they'll be given warnings and proceed appropriately to blocks. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that any admin is willing. I do have an Idea however. We do have a few editors who SAY they are willing to work at it. This talk page shows we tried to get consensus and change MMA NOT criteria. If they really want to build content in Compromise, give them free reign over the Omnibus and continue to AfD individual articles.

I'd still like, as a show of good faith, to try and get UFC 146 closed as KEEP in an efort to show good faith, despite it's failing WP:FUTURE.

Just an FYI, All the other UFC fights I closed withdrew will be opened again, but I am going to also use it to drive people to find sources and if they can KEEP the articles that are notable. However, If we can put a stop to Future events being created as stand alone articles, and let them have leeway at the Omnibus, it may be a way to dent the cesspool it's food after awhile.

Dennis and other admins thoughts on the whole arena are the reason I think we need to continue. If not, all of wikipedia is destined to a slow creeping failure.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f's first TLDR posting. Granted by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

What's indisputable about this whole fiasco is that as much as the AfD clique tries to hide behind "assume good faith", it's blatantly obvious that no one in the subject space trusts them as human beings even the slightest as they abuse the system for whatever kicks they get out of it. Trust is built through acting out good faith, a concept so seemingly foreign to these "people" that quotes around the word is strangely poignant. That's simply a piece of reality that no bureaucratic rule can change. The other more fundamental reality is that a loophole exists in "Wiki-law" which allows individual entries to be picked off via AfD, even when the entries taken as a cohesive set (which they undoubtedly are as evidenced by consistent linkage and indexing) do not violate any rule, and there doesn't seem to be a ruling or tool or hack to protect this scenario. This is something others and I asked Dennis about numerous times, and if he had only acted in good faith by ensuring users that this is a wish they have to hold off on as a temporary shelter is built in the meantime, then trust can be gradually built in the process. Note this is a question the AfD clique avoided with a vengeance, since their obvious goal is to minimize the presence of MMA on wiki. Even though we charitably call them bureaucrats, real bureaucrats would by definition accommodate or even welcome new rules or tools as long as it's sufficiently spelled out. Until an admin or whatnot comes along who's willing to face these core truths, this battle of the deletionist's creation will not end. Again, let's be clear, the only reason any other "side" (currently a unorganized mash of MMA misfits) exists is just an inevitable consequence of the AfD clique's pursuit to ruin the pages used by tens of thousands as they exist today. Assuming basic facts away is not how reality works, and any solution, including the previous one, that doesn't follow the rules of reality sets itself up to fail. Agent00f (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so that we can all be clear. Agent00f are you saying that any efforts to continue to construct notability guidelines for MMA event articles will result in you, and others, to continue to war against it, be nonconstructive and disruptive towards those efforts? Because that's what it sounds like to me. Also, your attacks on Dennis, me and others is in poor taste and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I would suggest you strike your comments. If you have questions about that, we can certainly discuss it on your talk page as this is not the correct place for that. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Second set of TLDR postings by Agent00f. Granted by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

The reason I believe many of the AfD clique have trouble comprehending what is being said is because it's spoken by an honest person who acts in good faith instead of mock the idea by pretending its existence regardless. It's understandable that folks who've pretended for too long have lost touch with how faith and trust works between humans in the real world. I've said many times that the MMA userbase is willing to bear the bitter reality that a given solution is the best we'll get as long we're not lied to and treated with general contempt on a constant basis. Covering up deception because speaking of it (while not the act of doing it) is "against the rules" is a disgrace to everything an ethical person should stand for. It's increasingly obvious that wiki-rules (including its processes) do not yet contain the toolset to resolve this peculiar dilemma and instead of working to rectify that problem, people seem content to cover it up and hope for the best. Let me ask a question you'll hopefully answer instead of ignore as usual: will anything except good conscience protect splintered event pages from AfD by the gang here in the future if we proceed on the current course, or even the whole thing out of contempt since it by design will not have the "prose" that is to be splintered? And where will this good conscience suddenly emerge from? In better times harsh comments are not in the domain of polite conversation, but it's the dose this affair needed and deserved from the beginning. Agent00f (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Also, if you want to speak of notability guidelines/solutions, it seems to me that a simple change in the sports section for cohesive and consistent (chained, list indexed) sets of entries as long as the whole meets the general guidelines is sufficient. This is simply a matter of organization. If we just add a strong "up-link" at the top of the page to a list of UFC events (which already exists), it's no different than an omnibus in spirit, only much better organized in comparison. You don't need me to spell out if the AfD clique will stand for this. Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the core truth that the MMA enthusiasts are refusing to be a part of the Wiki Community. Compromise requires both sides to give. Considering that the entire concept of an omnibus is outside the standard operating procedure, it's time to see the MMA enthusiasts to take some steps forward. Please stop assuming bad faith by calling those of us who are trying to meld policy with the desires of the MMA community as AfD clique. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to even consider the change just above? All I see here is a plan that one group with no subject expertise concocted being shoved onto people who have to live with it. You've seen my comment on the ANI page. Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I reject your premise that the group trying to push the guideline forward is attempting to minimize the coverage of MMA on Wikipedia. We are trying to save coverage by transforming the existing single event articles which are likely to be judged by a editor in good standing as not meeting the requirements into something that has a higher chance of surviving routine scrutiny. The reason why there are very few editors working in the space that have experience with MMA directly is because they've all been driven out by harassment, outing, deliberate attacks, and plain exhaustion in having to re-fight the same battle every single time. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So, no reply at all to the proposal at a realistic solution above, just more bullshit. Business as usual. "reason why there are very few editors working in the space", oh good riddance, we only wonder why so many remain. Agent00f (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

One could argue your no reply at all was doomed to failure at the outset based on the accusatory tone that it started off with. Besides you still haven't answered the question I originally posed in this section, Are you (collectively Agent00f and the other enthusiasts) willing to subject yourselves (just as I am willing to subject myself) to a administrator who will apply the community guidelines for conduct and debate going forward? I've always welcomed outside review of my actions, and with a few exceptions, have been keeping a civil tone with trying to explain the same points over and over again. How have you done in the civility department? Hasteur (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"no reply at all" is entirely factually accurate and it seems you only want it changed because it reflects badly, not because it's not true. I only hope you don't edit wiki in the same manner. If we can't be straight, then there's no point in talking. If you don't like me, you don't have to pretend you do; it serves neither of us any favors and only impedes honest discussion. Second, I have no idea what you mean. It's already been clearly state that we want an admin who is at least neutral, not someone colluding in private with people who act in bad faith to come up with a plan to shove on the rest of us. Frankly, if the AfD clique doesn't keep interjecting their tainted interests in the process, which they had no business in anyway given the obvious conflict of interest, this could probably be easily resolved to the satisfaction of both wiki and MMA userbase. I'm perfectly willing to trust TreyGeek (or even you) if he demonstrates action in good faith. We'll see if his proposal at least tries to clarify the organizational issue or it's the same bullshit. Agent00f (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Great to see you can dance around the question with the greatest of ease. You wanted a simple answer I provided my response. You still haven't answered my question simply. I'm glad to see actions of good faith are well recieved by the MMA userbase. Please consider not posting unless you have something constructive and susinct to post. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The answer is clearly stated, I only elaborated so you wouldn't be confused. We want a fair admin. An unfair admin clearly will not do as this whole debacle demonstrated. Agent00f (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the counter listed at the WikiProject: Mixed Martial Arts page, there are 2,404 articles that are associated with the project. Please strike your earlier hyperbole of "by the tens of thousands" as it serves no purpose but to inject extra drama into a situation already drama filled. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean users, as in "the pages used by tens of thousands". Stop "assuming bad faith". Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith, I am making a collegial good faith request for you to retract or clarify our earlier statement. In response to the page being "used" by tens of thousands, there is a guideline called WP:HITS which (in a nutshell) says that page accesses don't justify notability or inclusion. Your initial statement appeared to imply that the group was deleting tens of thousands of MMA based articles which is grossly in the realm of hyperbole. I question if other editors who had read the statement might not have taken the same assumption. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My "initial statement"? Those words were never changed, and don't need to be changed since it's simple english. Are you implying people here can't read english? Also, are you still insinuating that a sport watched by millions and covered by every sports site (espn, yahoo, fox) is not notable? Is this some kind of wiki in-joke? Agent00f (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In skimming over the wall of text I too thought I read it as tens of thousands of articles were being deleted. That's usually why short, succinct statements are better than long-winded ones. (Which I'm about to break.) Before I sit down to spend a few hours writing up a research grant report a couple notes. Agent00f's suggestion of changing the "sports section" to allow for a string of related articles. I assume you mean modifying WP:NSPORTS which is going to require an RfC just as modifying WP:MMANOT and getting it approved would. The attempt has been to derive a set of notability guidelines specifically for MMA events that is based upon Wikipedia's broader notability guidelines. Both will ultimately achieve the same goal, in my opinion, but by getting WP:MMANOT worked out and approved gives something more specific to MMA. There are a set of guidelines that have been proposed to allow individual articles covering a specific MMA event. It's up above (somewhere) and the "deletionists" like myself and Mtking were willing to support before the discussion was hijacked. As an MMA fan and a long-time contributor to the MMA WikiProject (though the harassment over the last two months has me leery of continuing to participate) I want to find a way for MMA related content to remain on Wikipedia and at the same time conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm thinking about, later tonight, to "reset" the discussion. By that I mean create a(nother) new section that condenses/rehashes the notability guideline ideas from above in hopes that the discussion can move forward in a constructive way. If I do this, my hope is that everyone put aside their battleground tendencies (including myself), the long diatribes, the half-veiled and full-on attacks, and work together to figure out how MMA content can be on Wikipedia. I just hope I'm not being a masochist by even thinking about doing so. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Third set of TLDR postings by Agent00f. Granted by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

I think we both know that the MMA community is reacting to this mostly because deleting entries (ie breaking the cohesive set) without another solution in place is fundamentally in bad faith. If you're going to destroy the value of the whole, might as well make it either/or for consistency. By placing people who're acting in bad faith all along as more than equal "partners" in the process, a clear conflict of interest btw, the place reeked of impropriety from the start. We also both know that pandering to deletionists have already driven away more contributors than one. Again, the MMA userbase is not here to war, but people will war when they're treated like the MMA userbase. You should consider the idea of inter-page coherency for whatever proposal. Again, this is only a matter of organization, not necessarily content (you should know about data structures). We both know this will solve the problem, so by starting there and pushing back against bureaucratic red tape if any comes it would demonstrate to even the most reluctant that work is being done in good faith. That's all anyone is asking. Agent00f (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

4th TLDR posting by Agent00f. Granted by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth (let's hope it's not a waste this time) and here's a framework that I think most (ie consensus) can agree to. In short, it's basically 80% of the omnibus with an intro tweak to improve notability above and beyond omnibus standards, plus some allowance for cleanly organized (ie templatized) event chains: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual_Events. Amend to note that if a lineal/ordered set of events as whole are notable along with a proper intro to the chain, then each individual element is, as long as it's presented/linked in a consistent fashion. This would means that UFC/Bellator events can start with a page (linked a la "up" button from every subsequent event) to introduce them properly, and then the reader can easily navigate in a coherent way within this set. IOW, the intro page would be used as the main "standards-compliance" entry. This is a higher standard than the omnibus. This also compromises with deletionism since it means poorly written one-off entries wouldn't be saved from AfD while that might loophole omnibus. This can also be cleverly merged with the omnibus idea by noting that if all events fit under a certain threshold (like BAMMA), then omnibusing under the intro is the way to go. As a temporary measure to make sure decent existing material doesn't get thrown out, hold off on AfD/delete until omnibuses for smaller orgs are created. I'd be perfectly willing to help with this. Moving forward after that, I don't think anybody would be too sore if their newly created page which doesn't meet the organization requirement is AfDed. The combination of the two point above is really quite closely to what we already have. By starting with the omnibus idea, but instead of mandating everything be very confusing and clutter in the same entry, allow the giant list to be partitioned only if they're very carefully organized (which for example the UFC pages are). IMO this is quite sensible and would be well supported by at least the userbase. The only difference to the existing plan is that a novel way of approaching navigation is written into the rules. The only thing the userbase can't stand is for EVERYTHING to be dumped wholesale when the existing well-formulate format is very nice to use and the alternative of 100 things crammed onto one page is asinine. If we hold the UFC "template" as close to the minimal standard, people would only be motivated to either raise the general level of organization/usability (very positive for wiki) for all the pages. Not sure if we can write the actual event template into the books, but a standard presentation for all mma events would be a positive for everyone. The benefit of templatizing would be that there's clear brightline test come AfD time. I don't think anyone is against deleting crap. For example, I think most would be fine with detailed mma-centric minimal guidelines for individual entries (a la template) in addition to the linking requirements, but holding each event to a ridiculous level is pure bureaucratic idiocy when it's clearly part of a whole (in this case starting with the intro). Agent00f (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC) refined: Agent00f (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is more I don't like it.

If you want all events covered, in sequence, go ahead, everyone has agreed that can occur on the Omnibus. The lineal/ordered set of events as whole are NOT Notable according to sourcing provided and the condition of the articles, not to mention the WP:Future issues. WP is not structured for the maximum usage value to any single subject, it is structured as a User edited Encyclopedia. Just because an improper format was allowed to be used for any amount of time, does not make that form correct or fit into the encyclopedic guidelines.

Your approach is flawed, it implies that all UFC events are inherently notable, yet all do not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT,etc

There are UFC events that are not notable enough for a single article, hence all the previous dicussion,mediation,etc, that the omnibus idea arose from.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I've rewritten somewhat for clarification, please try again.

2. Is your logic that the same set of events on one page (which you already agreed is notable) is more notable than the if they were cleanly split in a clear and organized way? How does that work in your head? These are not rhetorical questions so please answer them.

3. WP is structured to compromise the general with the specific, which is why there are more specific separate guidelines for different subject matter. I'm not sure you understand what a compromise means; can you please define it so we can can know what you're talking about? Again not rhetoric. I'm quite serious. Agent00f (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You have succeeded in obstructing the process well enough to have Dennis drop out,Mreleganza stop participating,Udar55 stop participating,etc. Your statements about bad faith and previous behavior have left no one williing to work with you. The result will be more AfD's with deltetions and keeps, most likely more UFC articles than would have been able to be preserved otherwise.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What you seem to miss is that this idea is very similar to omnibus but not as asinine to mma page user. I took some pains to compromise. So can you clarify if you personally dislike it simply out of spite or only because it's not entire what you want? TreyGeek actually seems like quite a reasonable person and this is really something for him to consider. Also, on the related note, did you see my comments on the ANI? The basic strategy of the AfD folks was to make decisions for everyone and cherry pick a few MMA guys to lend it credibility. If that's the standard operating policy before, what problem do you have with it now? Anyway, I can personally guarantee the userbase will like this a lot more than the omnibus alone. Agent00f (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Udar55 was not cherry picked, nor was Mrelganza. aside from that, you are still obsessed with the idea that all UFC events are inherently notable. The Omnibus and letting it be flexible with the rules WAS the compromise. you aren't trying to compromise at all. You are trying to reframe the same argument and belittle the editors that got tired of your disruptiveness and left to accomplish other things. I for one am done here as far as you are concerned, I will not respond to further posts by you or questions if I respond to a post from someone else. If you ever decide to be constructive, I'm sure you will find a willing ear somewhereNewmanoconnor (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you not capable of answering the simple question above? If you can't answer simple questions regarding your thought process, which is a basic requirement of logical thinking, then people won't take you seriously. Again, these aren't trick questions, and the only way it can possibly be "belittling" is if someone can't even explain their opinion. Write a clear response and prove what everyone already thinks about the AfD clique wrong.

Also, it's pretty clear you didn't even read the proposal, since it's basically 80% omnibus with 2 changes: a clear intro which improves notability, and another to accommodate clearly formatted event chains. If anything, they're tighter standards for content than the omnibus. Frankly it's not helpful for people who don't read to participate. Agent00f (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is "against" improving the original structure, or switching to an omnibus system if there really is no alternative. The problem Agent00f rightly addresses is that individual UFC articles have been deleted BEFORE a solution was in place. And worse, that the AfD's have been requested by Mtking, Newmanoconnor, etc who are the same people who are participating here in these discussions essentially forcing the issue. So this current situation (and all the subsequent drama) has been forced upon us by a very small set of users and could easily have been avoided if people hadn't been so overzealous in their application of the AfD requests. I'm glad most of the AfDs have been withdrawn for now, but the fact remains that as of this moment articles like UFC143 (which is not a future event) are still deleted and the new omnibus page isn't up to snuff. If we can all take a step back, restore the old system FOR THE TIME BEING, remove the partial lock on the omnibus page so we can have more people updating it, figure out if there are any alternatives to the omnibus page, and then move forward from there. Because as of right now, we have two broken systems in place (missing individual articles courtesy of Mtking and associates, and a half assed unwieldy omnibus page), and the longer this lasts the more drama we invite upon us. (75.101.47.18 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC))

I think our only frustration from this point on is that the AfD folk won't be able to recognize that this is 80% of the omnibus plan with very specific and frankly non-invasive changes. Also, despite pretending to leave in a huff because they now only get 80% of the say instead of de facto 100%, I'm sure they'll be following up to see if you're a sockpuppet. I hope the resulting tears will be just as sweet to you. As a practical matter, I think the articles are archived, so if we move reasonably quickly on this (and I think we can because I can't imagine much opposition from the userbase, nor any admin if any would approve of omnibus in the first place), it's possible the disruption would minimal. Agent00f (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you happen to be sitting in the cubicle next to me, I'm not colluding with you nor have any clue who you are. I also have no idea how to go about undoing a deletion, and Dennis didn't seem willing to help us out here. I'm willing to try and improve the omnibus page to have something workable in place, but I can't in it's semi-locked state nor do I know how to remove that lock. The main issue I have is that a handful of editors have forced this issue upon the userbase by requesting multiple AfDs without having a working alternative in place and then cry foul when you and others don't like it. If they had gone about this in a less heavy handed fashion we wouldn't be having these discussions. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f's solution is outstanding. It's the same content we all agree shouldn't be deleted, it would conform broadly to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia and it's in a usable format. In my view, pushing against a balanced solution like this and clinging to the most rigid interpretation of policy, disqualifies someone from the benefit of good faith initially assumed. I don't see how there can be any logical interpretation of such actions as anything but recklessly, or wilfully obstructive. It's not productive, and with respect, it has all the of a pointless (unless you're obsessed with getting your way on the internet, which granted, is not out of the realm of possibility for people, is it now?) power struggle.

I also see selective replying going on. So as to avoid any doubts about whether I employ innuendo, I will state what I mean as clearly as possible. Hasteur, you made a real point about me supporting my assertions, and practically demanded that I retract my statement if I couldn't. I did and I requested an acknowledgement from you on this matter and it was roundly ignored. This isn't innuendo. This is plainly stating facts about the uneven expectations of etiquette from the two camps. Being demanding and then not acceding to basic requests is really quite rude where I'm from. Perhaps it's not as frowned upon on these talk pages. Do remember we're still people, old chap. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for ruining UFC coverage on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I initially had something about how everyone should stop slinging around accusations of bad faith even if that may or may not be true for a few. I still think people should be more restrained to keep things from further deteriorating. However Newmanoconnor, if you're going to take a shotgun approach with AfDs again while we still have an ongoing discussion here, whether you're acting in bad faith or not doesn't matter because it practically amounts to the same thing. It's extremely counterproductive and is just pouring gasoline on fire EDIT: I ask that you please retract them again as an act of good faith /EDIT. So are ad-hominem attack on both sides, of which I'm not innocent, but I did later apologize for my initial reactions to this whole situation and am trying hard to argue in a dispassionate a manner. About recreating the articles deleted, I'm not sure that fully deleted articles actually are archived, but some of them have Portuguese-language versions that are pretty much mirrors and one could use those as a template, should it come to that. Now that I have that out of th way, I think we should be able to agree that second-tier promotions like BAMMA, KSW, Bodog Fights, Tachi Palace Fights, and even Sengoku are fine being entirely omnibused, maybe by year or whatever, provided that nothing is deleted prior to an omnibus article put in place. I would consider Affliction to be a top-tier promotion considering the all-star roster it assembled, but it was short-lived enough that I am certainly open to that one being omnibused as well. Right now, I think it would also be best to establish which promotions should have any individual event articles, whether it be one or two events in their existence or every event. By my count the number of historical MMA promotions in that category is around 8-10, with only two being active (UFC and Strikeforce). On the other end of the argument, even if certain UFC events fail to meet notability guidelines, there is a point where it shouldn't matter just for ease of use and being part of a larger legacy. Say, if notability could be established for 80 out of the last 100 events, the other 20 probably ought to exist regardless due to the way they are all laid out, and due to the larger legacy of the UFC. There is tons of precedence for this all over wikipedia. Would the 1959 Eurovision contest be nearly as notable if it wasn't part of a larger cultural institution? I think that's at least debatable. The UFC is certainly iconic within combat sports in general (not just MMA), and as it is still growing in popularity it is verging on being iconic within sports as a whole. What's more It actually costs less bandwidth to have smaller articles to link to than larger and more unwieldy omnibus ones. So, I think we need to keep all that in mind. Beansy (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I will address this and any other issue on your talk page, after this final comment about AfD's.

Provided progress starts to be made,and we get a plan moving forward to RfC, I will withdraw my nom again. If necessary. I do, at this point wish, I had decided to wait 12 hours before renominating, or longer to see if this discussion can proceed anew as Treygeek has tried to start below. I am sure you can understand my frustration after losing 3 constructive participants. I am only unwilling to withdraw immediately because I did so last time and feel, it was taken advantage of, not accepted to continue in building constructive consensus.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not just keep both the separate event pages and the omnibus event pages with links directing to both to allow users to see the information the way they want to see it? 109.151.225.151 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward again

Summary of my intentions: My intention with this section is to attempt to restart discussions on a possible set of guidelines for the notability of individual MMA events. If a consensus can be found here, then it can move forward to a possible RfC to attempt to make what we agree on into a guideline agreeable by the Wikipedia community at-large. What is below is the result of recent (within the last week or two), constructive discussions about the notability of MMA events. There are a couple things I'd like to stress first. I am not including discussion of omnibus articles in what I have below. I believe that omnibus articles can peacefully coexist with individual articles. There is debate as to the overall purpose, content and format of omnibus articles. However, I feel that is a different discussion for another venue (perhaps WT:MMA). I, personally, am more focused on possible guidelines for the notability of individual MMA events, and for all possible promotions not just UFC.

That said, in the discussions to follow, I hope that we can have an intelligent discussion/debate as mature adults (event if you aren't one in real life). I would rather not see finger pointing at any person or group, personal attacks or derogatory comments directed at any person or group. Wikipedia has a policy in place in regards to this issue (WP:NPA) and I think admins won't be shy to liberally apply it at this point. Therefore, I will ask for people to discuss the notability issue and not "obstructionists", "AfD cliques", or other references to groups of people. With that, let's try to proceed.....

Notability proposal

Below is a proposal to modify WP:MMAEVENT to read and/or include the following:

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

Individual events are not inherently considered notable. Articles about individual MMA events can exist if they meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The criteria below provides guidance as to how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may apply to MMA events:

• Inclusion Criteria: For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article, the article should have at least one source that is reliable, independent of the subject, and discusses the event and its significance. This means that one or more sources pass WP:RS, is not primarily MMA related, and the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results. Websites such as Sherdog.com are allowable, and preferable, for sourcing facts. However, they should not be used to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

• Article Content: Individual event articles should not be created until they are announced through one of the fully independent sources as mentioned in the inclusion criteria. Individual event articles should contain enough prose so that non-MMA fans can understand what lead up to the event occurring, the individual fights themselves, any after-effects of the event and the significance of the individual event. Ideally, at least 3 to 4 paragraphs besides the fight descriptions for stand alone event articles should be used.

Discussion

Again, this is what I've managed to reconstruct from the discussion above and/or in the talk page's archives. The relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines being applied here are:

• General notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
• WP:FUTURE: Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
• WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
• WP:SPORTSEVENT: Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats.
• WP:PROSE: Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

The verbiage used above is intentionally generic but should apply to the concerns that have been addressed. If UFC events are truly notable, then finding them covered at some point by ESPN, CNN, or other non-MMA media shouldn't be difficult. Feel free to offer your feedback, suggestions or counter-proposals. However, please keep it WP:CIVIL and counter-proposals should be supportable by existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines (at least in my opinion they should). Finally, don't expect an immediate response from me about any comments that follow, and don't be surprised if I wait 12 hours before responding to anyone. I, personally, would rather see what everyone else has to suggest and consider them as a whole. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking only on what you have proposed for RfC, though I personally think two independent sources should be required for notability, I would endorse this plan.

I also feel that if a lower tier mma organization has an event that meets these criteria, a stand alone article should be created, but that it must pass a two independent source guideline.

I apologies for just not commenting at times earlier, I was simply frustrated, that got the better of me a bit, I will be adjusting that some above, if you have an opinion on anything I've done in the past 12hrs, post it farther up, or on my talk page whether it has to do with AfD's, or previous comments.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose it is not what we want and is in breach of Wikipedia:BUREAUCRACY#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs)

We're creating a guideline to help uninvolved (i.e. Not MMA fans) editors detemine if the individual event article is notible. In no way is this adding additional process therefore WP:NOTBURO is not a valid argument. Hasteur (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support not much to add. Mtking ^(edits) 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support susinctly and easily codifying the current policies with examples specifically for MMA based topics. Hasteur (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
  • • Not a deletion discussion about any article. Try again. Hasteur (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• @IP24.x.x.x, while you start off stating your opposition to the notability proposal, the rest of your comments seem to support it. You state that "about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press". The notability guideline proposal above allows MMA events who are covered by at least one mainstream press article to be notable enough for an individual article. I am hoping you'd be able to further explain your opposition to the notability guideline proposal and specifically what part of the proposal you dislike and/or what should be modified with it. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I do not support any inclusion criteria based on something elitist and arbitrary sounding as "notability". Verifiability and usefulness to some percentage of our readers is all that really concerns me. If these articles are not hoaxes and are backed by reliable sources, then that should be good enough. "Notability" smacks of subjective opinion, because it varies from person to person. Inclusion criteria should be based on more tangible factors, and really, the whole whether or not the stuff had mainstream coverage really seems beside the point. If the purpose of Wikipedia per WP:FIVE is to be a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs, well, if you lumped together all the encyclopedias and almanacs published, including the UFC Encyclopedia, which falls under that specialized encyclopedia aspect of our first pillar, then, indeed such an all-encompassing compendium of knowledge would include tables and lists of sports results and events. Not every aspect of an almanac or encyclopedia is prose. Even Britannica had pages of tables and lists. Almanacs most certainly do as well. Not every article has to be a thirty paragraph featured article to be worthwhile for inclusion, just as Britannica had the micro and macro editions. Even if something is perpetually a stub, so be it. I just will never get the whole idea that information that is not made up and actually is used by thousands of readers should not belong here because the handful of accounts who focus their attention on AfDs say so. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody

• As elitist as it may sound, notability is a very important guideline to establishing inclusion criteria. It's the reason why each Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn't have their own article. Ishdarian 05:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Does that mean you'd support the creation of Championship Fight 11 an MMA event from the Nitrix promotion simply because it is listed at Sherdog.com[14]? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of any event that can be verified through reliable sources. The whole appeal of Wikipedia is its comprehensiveness. Any event that is not simply made up, I see no reason why we shouldn't cover it. We are not limited in the way a Britannica was. --24.112.202.78 -Sock of community banned User:A Nobody(talk) 17:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• @ScottMMA, I understand your possible concern with setting more rules that must be followed. However, in the four years I have been around Wikipedia there has never been a good understanding of what MMA events are notable and which are not (again, I'm referring to all possible MMA events and not just UFC). This needs to be understandable to admins, which very few may be MMA fans, because they ultimately decide based upon the arguments presented what passes AfD and what is deleted. This has resulted in the rash of AfDs in the last two months but AfDs have always been an issue with MMA WikiProject for lower tier promotions and their events. What this proposal is attempting to do is take the half dozen or more Wikipedia guidelines and policies and combine them into a single, understandable guideline regarding the notability of MMA events. Without doing so the AfDs and confusion over what MMA events are notable and not notable may continue. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support for inclusion criteria: I think it would be very helpful to show examples from articles about what is "routine" coverage versus what would warrant inclusion. Regarding the Article Content/length requirement: This is going to instantly take out a lot of articles. I'm not opposed to that if that's what the community agrees to. Still, I feel that in, for example, the area of music, editors use stub vs. article classification very well. Right now, a lot of MMA events are stubs event if not classified as such. If they meet the inclusion criteria, I'd suggest we include the article regardless of length (or with perhaps a one paragraph intro) and call it a stub as you might find on some notable album article with little content. A lot of work has been put into some of the articles, although they may not have sufficient prose to meet the criteria above. I agree that doesn't make them articles, but I'm concerned that a blank page (from deletion) might discourage someone from expanding a stub article. I am still arguing that you need the independent non-routine source for an event page, but once you have that, it can stand as a stub until it meets the content requirement above, at which point it would become an article. Going to sleep now. Thank you everyone. --Policy Reformer(c) 05:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Are you saying the article content criteria should be removed? Or could it be modified to allow for event stubs if the article lead includes a paragraph to "establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" (WP:LEAD)? It could then go on to say that "ideally" a full article should contain at least 3-4 paragraphs blah blah blah. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• The problem for letting the articles remain as stubs is that typically the articles get created with content/formatting that raises the article above the level of stub, but doesn't have enough to really qualify it for a full strength article. The content is typically flash in the pan (obviously events like UFC 94 are the counter example of enduring content/coverage). If we allow stub level articles all it does is postpone the discussions regarding notability down the road, ergo that's why we're trying to set out a definite set of minimums that ensure that should they be met, they're probably safe from a deletion attempt. Typically there's only about 2.5 paragraphs of cited prose out there for most events, by pushing the minimum to 3~4 paragraphs, it ensures that the article demonstrates it notability thoroughly. Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Inclusion Criteria and amend Article content I agree that we need something notable to provide as an example of non routine coverage, UFC 146 may be a start,we should look for others.I think the Article content clause should have the 3-4 paragraphs requirement struck and replaced with something closer to what PR and Trey are discussing. I need to think on that a bit.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to draft this in to a RfC ?

Given the only opposes above is from a blocked SPA is it time to draft a formal RfC proposal on this now ? Mtking ^(edits) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of 2 registered accounts that might have some thoughts to share (granted they'll probably be obstructionist), but I'd like to let Agent00f to have his say so that he can't accuse us of shotgunning the proposal while he was blocked. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at this page all day trying to figure out where to go from here since conversation seems to have stalled. I personally would be interested in hearing from PolicyReformer and Portillo (PR about stubs and Portillo about how much their statements matches the proposal above). As for Agent00f and ScottMMA, my only response to waiting on them is a shrug at this point. Looking forward to a possible RfC, do we simply slap an {{rfc}} template on the relevant section containing he proposal and advertise about it? (If an MMA ANI is still open when the RfC is started, that'd probably be a good place.) Or is there something more formal that should be done? (I've only glanced at WP:RFC, so if the answer is to go read it fully, that's a fair answer. :) --TreyGeek (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if we are going to move forward We should archive this page and start the RfC on a new one,also having a link to this would be helpful for those that may want to read it.Leaving it seems like it just leaves the page too cluttered, and who knows how many people are gonna comment at RfC. Speaking of that, I think we should ask ScottyWong to protect the RFC.Waiting on Agent00F, I'm in agreement with Trey there, but Portillo,Udar55,PR,all hopefully will chime in, or at least we should give them time to.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not saying start the RfC, just draft the question and seek feedback on that, I agree that to start an RfC this instant might be seen by one or two editors as shotgunning. I think a new page should be started for the RfC, and that it should be publicised as widely as possibly, for example Wikipedia:Centralized discussion as well as notices placed at WP:ANI and WP:AN as if the result is to have any credibility it needs to be seen as having had as wide a possible participation. Mtking ^(edits) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with your points. Ravensfire (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a good, solid proposal that gives enough guidelines to avoid future drama. As I commented on ANI, I also think there's a wider issue here, not just MMA. WP:ROUTINE pretty strongly says don't just report results. So if the event results are published in, say, USA Today, you've got the one mainstream, non-MMA source that some of the options I've seen call for, but you've still got a routine article. Is that acceptable? Toss in some slippery slope stuff and it's tough. From the MMA forum users, I doubt any proposal that doesn't automatically allow articles for all UFC events (PPV, Fox, FX, etc) will get any support. I know the three of you expect that, but it needs to be said. That has the implication that anything from the RFC will be a challenge to enforce.

I think whatever is proposed in the RFC needs to be clear not coached in WP terms as much as possible. If omnibus articles are deemed the approach going forward (as I think it should), here's a rough outline. Start with one article per MMA organization. When to split it out by year. When to split further (example - I think UFC's omnibus would benefit from being split further). Require event articles to start as redirects to the omnibus and ONLY get split into their own article when there is talk page consensus. Give some concrete examples of when an article should be split into a separate article. State clearly that major events for top-tier organizations have a lower standard for being split off than non-major events or events from organizations not in the top tier.

Something else that could be good to include in the RFC is to restate the purpose of Wikipedia articles - to summarize and include significant details, not include every little thing. It might help with the MMA forum users to give them a better understanding of Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you please summarize the contents of the prospective RfC here before it happens? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Notability proposal

Below is a proposal to modify WP:MMAEVENT to read and/or include the following:

• Inclusion Criteria: For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article, the event should have been covered by at least one of the major MMA news sites such as mmajunkie.com, mmamania.com, mmatorch.com, mmaweekly.com or sherdog.com

Discussion

Strong support it is simple and what the fans want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs)

• Oppose Not in keeping with WP's existing policies and would not stand any chance in getting passed a RfC. Mtking ^(edits) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Support More than MMA sources should be added however. USA Today, Daily Telegraph, ESPN, Fox Sports, Telegraph, Yahoo! Sports and many other mainstream media outlets cover UFC events. Portillo (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is way out of line with policy. The proposal above this one is a lot more in depth in regards to supporting policies. Scott, I know you're upset about this whole ordeal, but not every MMA event is going to be notable. Just because it happens, doesn't mean it meets standards for inclusion. 174.252.42.235 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) My comment. Adding sig. Ishdarian 02:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball's Chance in Hell Oppose So far out of line that would allow single even backyard fights to get included. Hasteur (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE. Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc. The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights. They involve notable fighters. They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions. They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons. Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide. These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
    • Not a deletion discussion. Try again. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Not very polite. Try again. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok. 24 IP address, we are not talking about deleting the article, we are talking about proposing a guideline to help uninvolved editors determine if an article meets the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Your support rationale suggests you believe this is a Articles for Discussion regarding UFC events. It is not. Because your support of the proposal appears to be non-sequitor to the debate your viewpoint will very likely be discounted on the grounds that it is off topic. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think this proposal will have a hard time gaining approval from the wider Wikipedia community via RfC. It basically allows an event at even some of the smallest, and potentially least notable, organizations to have an article discussing an individual event. Specifically, this proposal allows for an article about today's Championship Fight 11 by the Nitrix promotion because it is listed at Sherdog.com[15]. This proposal would need more refinements from it's current state I think. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• @Portillo, if you believe that MMA event articles should contain at least one source from mainstream media, why not support the proposal above this one? It requires at least one mainstream media source just as you are advocating here. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If all a UFC event needs is one source from mainstream media, then just about all pay-per-view events will be notable enough for individual articles. Since all UFC events are covered by mainstream media. Something tells me that even with mainstream media sources, UFC events will still not be allowed. Portillo (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If all that's in the article is the fights and results, then it's going to run afoul of WP:ROUTINE. You've got to find something that makes that particular event notable. You don't see articles for single football games other than the Super Bowl or conference championships. Same for baseball, basketball, etc. It takes something like Philip Humber's perfect game to get an article - that's something that's happened just 21 times. By comparison, no-hitters are just in List of Major League Baseball no-hitters - they aren't notable enough for their own article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think UFC should be compared to WWE and boxing events, not to seasonal sports like football, baseball, soccer etc. Portillo (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty reasonable. I think the majority of UFC numbered events are going to be notable. The events where titles change hands, records are set, and major injuries occur are generally going to garner the most coverage. It's the smaller MMA organizations that aren't going to recieve anything other than routine coverage in mainstream sources. Ishdarian 05:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree to have all MMA events besides UFC to have omnibus articles. Pride and Strikeforce have had notable events, but I can compromise. Portillo (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See, I like the idea of omnibus articles. They work, when used properly. I earnestly believe the UFC omnibus should stay. For the select UFC articles that do not meet notability standards on there own can be included in the omnibus. Similarly, UFC events that DO meet notability standards get their own articles and can be linked to from the omnibus. Take the List of Street Fighter characters article, for example. This is the way it should work. Also, I meant to say "smaller MMA organizations that aren't often going to recieve anything other than routine coverage in mainstream sources." Some will, and they will meet standards for their own articles. Ishdarian 08:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Again I would agree that the smaller UFC events like UFC on Fuel, Fight Night, UFC on FX etc, can be merged into an omnibus article. UFC pay-per-view events are notable enough for individual articles. Portillo (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Using UFC 145 as an example, sorry, no way based on how that's written. Look at WP:ROUTINE, that's all you've got in that article. Routine coverage. If that's the standard for how MMA folks want their articles, this problem will continue to crop up. Simply put, there's nothing there to demonstrate much for that event. UFC hosts quite a few PPV events - what makes any particular event stand out compared to another? 146 meets that with the drug test failure. The potential for an article doesn't matter - it's the current state of the article that has to meet the notability requirements. Simply reporting the match results (aka routine coverage) doesn't meet that test.

Here's something that kinda surprises me. Wikipedia really isn't about routine stuff like this. You aren't going to find box scores for the Cubs latest game here. You'll find a summary of their 2012 season. What we do is link to external sites for those details. Why a good, solid MMA site hasn't figured that out and positioned itself to be that detailed site for WP is surprising. There's a lot of traffic. Use WP as the summary of the events and use the external site for the details. You know, like most articles do.

The omnibus itself should really be split into UFC events, UFC on Fox and UFC on FX articles. It IS too big as it's currently written. Create a List of UFC events in 2012 article that lists all events by date with location and link to the main article. Now you're splitting it up but you've got an easy way for folks to see the full list. Ravensfire (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC events should not be compared to seasonal sports but WWE and boxing events. If your saying that we should expand the article and explain why the event is notable, that can be done. For example UFC 145 featured the rivalry between Jon Jones and Rashad Evans, which featured heavily in the media.123 Portillo (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This was the intent behind the article content criteria as I understood it; to require some amount of prose to "explain why the event is notable". --TreyGeek (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah - sports are sports. WWE in particular is a poor comparison - it's unabashedly entertainment not sports. Boxing is also pretty poor - fighters don't compete as often and there's nothing like UFC in the boxing realm that advertises/promotes/runs large numbers of events under it's moniker. If anything, football is a great example as most individual games get as much, if not more, coverage than any given UFC PPV. You don't seen articles on individual games though. It takes something tremendous for an article for a single game to appear. I've seen things like that for quite a while, but all the MMA folks bothered to do was put in the routine stuff. That's what needs to change. Ravensfire (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So MMA editors should expand UFC event articles and explain why they are notable, agreed. In contrast, I dont think its a good idea to go around deleting and merging UFC articles left and right in a heavy handed way. It is incredibly frustrating and timewasting. Portillo (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Portillo, correct me if this is wrong. It appears you support the idea that MMA event articles should cite at least one source from mainstream media. It also seems to me that you also agree that MMA event articles should contain some degree of text to explain why the event is notable. I'm curious what about the first proposal in this section (with inclusion and content criteria) do you disagree with? --TreyGeek (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the heavy handed way editors have been going around decimating, deleting and merging UFC articles. It has been incredibly annoying, frustrating, non-sensical and confusing. Even if an article is reliably sourced, expanded and notability established, it seems as if these editors will still find an excuse to delete it. Portillo (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward, Without the Bullshit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP is not a WP:SOAPbox

Now that our revolution has occurred, what happens in the immediate aftermath will be important to the future of MMA articles on wiki. Please take a moment to reflect on the gravity of what's happened before continuing because what you do from this moment on will matter. Since we've all passed enough history classes to catch the mistakes of revolutionaries before us, the key goal for now is to prevent the situation from spiraling back into dictatorship. Another important point of business is to seek contributors with wiki-savvy (MMA interest preferred but by no means required) to help write the user's interests into new rules which remain within the boundaries of what is allowed. This is a new platform based on the spirit of the law, but with enough lettering mixed in to pass broader wiki community scrutiny. Our priority will always be to stakeholders who use and contribute, and try to work the rulebook to accommodate this, not the other way around. This is what wiki is about: the userbase, and do not let bureaucrats tell you otherwise. We've all been burned in the past which makes us all reluctant to trust again, but try to read everything henceforth with a fresh pair of eyes instead of old prejudices. Personally I have no wish to command or supervise anyone unless circumstances are dire, so please listen to more eloquent or renowned folks who're better spokespeeps in these times of peace. There will not be a list of insiders like before, everyone with a reasoned voice is welcome here. But given we all know how these social experiments have failed previously, some are going to be more welcome than others........j/k. The previous executives chased a lot of good honest people away, so let your wiki friends know we're back with a new business-casual atmosphere. At some point in the future, it's likely that an admin will cross our path to approve any formalized spec. They might naturally push back. Extend them the same courtesy as you would extend me or anyone else, because that's what compromise is about. It cannot be stress enough that there are eyes on us now from higher places. Let's show them that we're not what they think we are, but in fact better than what they pretend to be. Instead of simply assuming egalitarian values, we can demonstrate them. Now allow me to be contradictory: Let loose, have a good time, for we are free at last. Bit more to come tomorrow, comrades.... :) Agent00f (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can all move even more forward tomorrow. Portillo (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're leading a particular group on here, Agent00f, you're their spokesperson, and that's a valuable contribution. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(@Agent00f) I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but even starting out but starting out you make assertions which demonstrate bad faith. Part of demonstrating good faith is choosing words which do not prejudice the discussion. Please consider your words carefully as written text doesn't communicate the verbal and non-verbal cues that chatting with a friend does. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I actually laughed when I read the guideline posted, and this interpretation of it. This is nothing short of hilarious. Wiki-lawyers: They're just like real lawyers, except they aren't educated, they don't get paid and they don't actually end up achieving anything. I recommend Law School. I'm no longer frustrated. Just extremely smug and amused. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What's been going on

I promised an update in the section above (click "show" to see), which I delivered on. Unfortunately it was deleted wholesale by MtKing in direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule, and its reversion was collaboratively prevented by MtKing and TreyGeek via a 3RR loophole. Ongoing AN regarding this issue HERE. There's no reason to post any more specifics of a counter-proposal since it'll be deleted anyway. Agent00f (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the Solution

I have already said what I think on the deletion review for this page, but I will paste on here what has been said. After everyone reads it this must be discussed as a workable system that will not affect either the separate pages or the omnibus pages anymore.

• I have the solution! I have written to Jimbo Wales on his talkpage for help as this whole thing has gotten too far, and User:Wikid77 has come up with the best solution. It is on the talkpage but for those who would point blank refuse to go on it, I will bring what he said on here -

Talk page posting from Jimbo's talkpage

"Seems reasonable to have 30 UFC-event articles per year: The long-term tradition appears to be workable, to have separate articles for each of the UFC events, especially considering there are only about 30 major events per year. Obviously, there will be enough news sources for each sporting event, and with only 30 per year, then later reports will often re-mention the earlier events to strengthen their notability for separate articles. The added yearly article ("2012 in UFC events") would be workable if kept condensed, with links to the larger, separate UFC-event articles. This situation is similar to hurricane articles, where some people have questioned the notability of each storm, and if a hurricane stayed out at sea (and only a few islands or ships were affected), then deletionists have tried to ax the separate pages, in favor of the yearly article, such as "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" listing 28 tropical storms and 15 hurricanes for year 2005, where the major storms included Hurricane Katrina (August), Hurricane Rita (September), and Hurricane Wilma (October), but also the July storms Hurricane Emily (2005) and Hurricane Dennis were considered to be powerful storms. Try not to be upset about people being obsessed with deleting articles, but also remember that having a yearly article (such as "2012 in UFC events") does not mean the separate UFC-event articles must be deleted. Both the separate and yearly UFC articles can be kept, as with each year's hurricane articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)" So as you can see, maybe the best solution isn't to have one or the other, but to have BOTH on here, the separate pages AND the Omnibus pages on Wikipedia, that way everyone is satisfied, all the right boxes for the topic is ticked, and the information is just as easily accessible for those who are looking for this information as before. I think somewhere down the lines people have forgotten that people aren't interested in Wikipedia for debating how the information is presented (if its present at all) but to find what they are looking for and read it, and thats what matters. For this reason I am now going to change my vote to Keep both separate event pages AND Omnibus event pages, and I hope you all do the same! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Comment I would have no objection to having the single articles remain and the omnibus exist as well. I suppose that would give people the option to utilize whichever system they prefer. I personally think the omnibus is way too cumbersome and I don't like it so I would only use the single page articles, but I also would have no objection to an omnibus coexisting. Pull lead (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC) If this is the result of the review, then the first thing we ALL need to do is call a truce between each other, in which we stop the bickering, the insults and end all AfDs on the separate and omnibus UFC pages because it has been going nowhere and we need a realistic solution that works for all. We will then need to discuss removing the merge links from the UFC events on the 2012 in UFC events such as UFC 152, and then we should have directory links on the separate pages to the 'Year in' omnibus pages and vice versa. Then all users will work to regularly update both the separate pages and omnibus pages from then on so that neither page would be without the same information.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to do. In the end of the day, Wikipedia is about finding information you want/need to find, and Wikipedia is the best place to find what your looking for. For the MMA community, Wikipedia has been a vital source to finding out fight event results from the night before if they weren't able to watch the event. For people who edit on Wikipedia all the time, I can understand you have policies that you must follow but at the same time why does it have to be a 'our system or no system' approach to this? It's like I pointed out before the references for the 2012 in UFC events page are virtually identical to that of the separate pages, and when you think about the fact that its is only the 5th month of the year and there are over 100 references on the omnibus page, largely from MMA websites, then how is it much different to have separate pages with only a handful of the same references directly for the same event? You must remember as well it doesn't matter how it is presented, it is always going to be viewed by certain certain people, which in this case is the UFC/MMA community. This is why I want you guys as well to agree that keeping both the omnibus pages and the separate pages is the best solution and I want you to back me on that! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

109 IP, in the future, please do not cross post discussions from other locations into here. It gives the impression that peoples comments made elsewhere are addressed to this location. The simple link to the archives is sufficient to link our discussion to the original one so the context of the discussion can be understood. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is what I think so far. If anyone agrees with me, please discuss this idea with other users, no matter if they were for just the separate pages or the omnibus pages. 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see with this, is it isn't backed up by any policy, and I may be wrong, but Jimbo will probably want this issue resolved the way other issues are resolved, developing policy at RfC. That said, I think it's fine to make these arguments at am RfC, but we have to have new notability guidelines to get there. I would suggest engaging in discussion At WP:MMANOT so we can bring a plan, possibly two to RfC.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is you are only approaching this from a whats good for MMA fans using this as their go to resource for MMA info. Scrapnotability because noone will agree on that? That is what coming up with new notability guidlines at RfC is about. A problem arises if the only interest an editor has in wikipedia and it's policies are in relation to a single subject or in this case the structuring of information on WP. WP is supposed to be a user edited encyclopedia, it should cover things that an encyclopedia would, the way an encyclopedia would, but not be hampered with the ill effects of only having paid expert contributors. The reason it can work with amateurs is the WP:IRS policy and others.No one is suggesting that we rid MMA from WP, only that it be covered in an encyclopedic way. You don't have to totally agree with the proposals that have been made to take to RfC for notability, but you have to offer constructive ideas and alternatives. Flogging WP:POLICY and editors that put WP over any single interest won't get us to a solution, neither will standing on a WP:SOAPBOX about how the status quoe works and it should be left.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument here now, what is being said is the very thing I'm trying to say that the omnibus pages, in fact, shows less notability as when there were individual pages. I'm going to use UFC 144 as my example for what I'm going to say now. On the page you can clearly see that there are 16 references on the page (by my standard, that is pretty good for a page), now on the 2012 in UFC events#UFC 144 section, there are just 7 references covering the event, how does that show the events notability any better than on the individual pages? The same 7 references are on the UFC 144 event page anyway, including the sources from FOX, Yahoo and ESPN so I still fail to see the difference. It also lacks any of the information people usually expects to see on the individual pages such Leonard Garcia George Sotiropoulos brief involvements to the event before their injuries, or the fact that tickets for the event cost between ¥5,800 and ¥100,000 (ca. US$70 – US$1250). (all of which have references, but not present on 2012 in UFC events page). This is stuff that has gone missing due to the fact that the omnibus pages limits what each event has.

Now one thing I must remind people of, no matter what you believe, the way that something is presented makes all the difference between people wanting to view it and not wanting to view it. The old system worked really well on the grounds that it was simple to get hold of the information, easy to find what you were looking specifically and wasn't hard to location through a search item, plus because it was a largely agreed upon system, it also received regular updates in which both the information and the sources were added, in most cases, within minutes of when the news broke out. The omnibus page has received a lot of criticism because it really is hard to navigate through, each event doesn't gives us a lot of information about the event other than just the fight results, is not updated frequently enough, pieces of the page is still missing such as UFC 151 and UFC 153, each event shows less notability than the individual pages (which I just pointed out) and the overall distaste the page has for the very people that the page, unquestionably, is targeted for. There must be some level of WP:COMMONSENSE that no matter what, if the target audience is not satisfied with the new look, it will hurt idea of using Wikipedia at all! People who believe in the omnibus pages, you must understand that if you start to shove you ideal solutions into people's heads when they feel happy with the current system, then destroy and then replace what the prefer with a different system with clear visual flaws and then prevent the original system from returning, they will definitely get irritated, annoyed, even angry.

Now I am not saying delete the omnibus page, as there are people who are more Wikipedians than MMA fans that prefer the omnibus page, as it meets nearly all the policies it should do, but why not create a middle-way to ensure that all side (at least for just UFC events) are happy? This has been going on for months now and it has resulted in many users from both sides permanently left Wikipedia, destroyed pages, over 10s of 1000s of characters used to debate on MMA events alone, and with no clear end in sight in the near future, why not make it happen now by both sides mutually agreeing to keep both systems of separate event pages and the omnibus pages, with direct links on each pages from the other system, and all users actively help build each page's notability? This is the most level headed thing I've said throughout this whole debate, and the best decision that come out of this situation. 86.149.148.121 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at your example, UFC 144, I would be opposed to merging. There is enough content (in addition to not meeting the weigh in limit) that the article could (in my mind) survive on it's own. I'd still want to include a 3~5 sentence synopsis of the event in the omnibus with a link to the main article.

I notice your very long post and going back shortly after to add some content that changes your meaning afterwords. If you're currently blocked on a registered account you really should not edit anything on Wikipedia while you're blocked as it's considered evading your block (and could be grounds for an extended block). Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying 'merge' the UFC 144 page to 2012 in UFC events, but instead have both pages run active on here, with a link at the top of each page/section of the omnibus page directing them to the other version of the same event. Like this -

(For separate event pages)This page covers a UFC event in a separate format. For a different view of the same event, go to 2012 in UFC events#UFC 144.

(For omnibus page for each event section)This section covers a UFC event in a omnibus format. For a different view of the same event, go to UFC 144.

This is what I mean, and with ALL UFC events brought back to their separate pages, we can do this to satisfy both the MMA community and the Wikipedia community. 86.149.148.121 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having 2 different formats is absolutely not going to work as editors are likely to come around, look at both versions and make a decision to remove one of the two and we're back where we started. All UFC events being brought back is probably not going to happen as most had proper AfD discussions, a few had Deletion Review discussions, and the community of Wikipedia users has yet to see a workable split of content demonstrated by the MMA community. the Wikipedia community has challenged the MMA community several times to demonstrate a workable format that will meet the requirements for WP. All the WP community has received back is hostility, personal attacks, calls for the status quo to continue, WP:CANVASSing, Puppetry, and repeated WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that have ground the process of forming a new consensus that both communities can live with to a halt. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Routine coverage of the event, even by ESPN etc, is not inherently able to satisfy WP:GNG, or WP:MMAEVENT. Individuals brief involvement in the event, ticket prices,etc are not notable, unless it's the first time ever tickest cost a certain amount. None of this "missing coverage" is limited from the Omnibus. Honestly you will get alot more leeway in the Omnibus(s). There will obviously be examples that should have stand alone articles, UFC146 for example with overeem and the drug issue.Wikipedia is not designed to be useful only to fans of the sport, someone doing research should be able to come to the encyclopedia and not have to dig through the trival information and non notable events in the long run, to accomplish their goal. The format must be friendly and encyclopedic for all, not just hardcore mma fans. That is not what wikipedia is. Thats what bloodyelbow is, what Sherdog is,what an MMAwiki would be. A Wiki and Wikipedia are two totally different things.Newmanoconnor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

But just think about this for a second. I'd say that a strong 8/10 people who comes to a particular page on Wikipedia do it because it interests them or is an interest of theirs (i.e. hobby, favourite sport, something they were looking forwards to etc.) and the other 2/10 people probably go to the page because they may of just heard about, noticed it by chance or just clicked onto it by accident. Those 8/10 people would want to see as much detail about the event as possible, so why must we start taking away from these events and stripping it down to its foundations? I get what your saying but that is why I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting! Give everyone what they want.

The MMA community loves the individualism of each UFC event, whilst Wikipedians are satisfied with the omnibus pages, so why not allow both to co-exist? Have all the separate UFC event pages to have a link at the top of their pages with a link to the omnibus page and a link on the section of the omnibus page directing them to the separate event page? It is a system that works for all, makes all happy and end all these arguments once and for all. By forcing us all to keep the omnibus pages without question, then destroy the omnibus pages, it has put all all 80+% of the people who view these events off using Wikipedia for this information for life. Yes it may meet Wikipedia policies now, but at what cost has it come with? Scaring off the core viewers of the pages is the true result off is what has happened here. There was virtually no point of ever changing the system if it was known that most of the regular people who look at these pages specifically were going to be put off because of it.

It can be saved, as long as those who agreed to the omnibus pages agree to allow all the separate event pages to be de-merged and returned as they were, then both sides can work to add the links to each omnibus and separate event pages to the other, then in turn we can help you in creating 2011 in UFC events, working backwards until we reach 1993 in UFC events (though I think there was only 2 or three that year so maybe pointless to do so) under the same system of each separate page has a link to the omnibus page and vice versa. This will work, give it a trial if nothing else, what have you got to lose now, people have already stopped using Wikipedia to find UFC related stuff because of this, this could help bring them back! 86.149.148.121 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cause for concern, the ratings bit would obviously be toward showing notability, but only if it's some dramatic turn downward, record ow, etc and satisfies continuing coverage. Other than that it is all airly routine outcomes from this type of sporting event. I do want to go back and read it again, and find some other sources if I can. Do you know of any ESPN,ABC,CBS,NYT,LAT,NBC,FOX,SI,main stream non MMA only sources that have covered any of those subsections in more detail?Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why some of you are in such a hurry to ruin such a popular aspect of Wikipedia. UFC events are inherently notable. Omnibus the smaller organizations. Tag the UFC articles that need to be fleshed out. I don't get why this is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.61.237 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the inherently notable argument for now. How do we know which MMA events to omnibus and which to have as individual articles? It's easy to tell in some cases, but there are some mid-level promotions where this decision is not so easy. The purpose of the notability guidelines to to provide guidance to figure out these questionable cases. Wikipedia has a certain level of rules and policies we must comply with, if this were an MMA-focused away from Wikipedia then the situation would likely be different. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases where it is not easy to tell: Let's err on the side of caution, instead of just deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.47.18 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll apologise in advance if my comments here don't follow established syntax or guidelines, but hopefully they aren't ignored because of that. I'm an MMA fan and have followed the MMA deletion discussions for weeks (or more) during that time I have tried my best to read up on the policies et all. I realise people popping up out of nowhere have been accused of being 'sockpuppets' or 'meatpuppets' etc, so feel free to check my IP address or whatever you need to do. Anyway, the discussion seems to just be going around in circles with no real resolution in sight, so thought I may as well put my 2c in.

I understand that those in the delete/merge camp have flagged the articles mainly for just being routine sports coverage (or in other cases being created a long time before they occur). The former is really on the MMA fans/editors, because almost every MMA wiki article could easily have more prose if they cared about the pages as vehemently as they appear to. UFC 145 for example, had very little mention of the backstory between Jon Jones and Rashad Evans, even going into a little detail on the history of that would have given several paragraphs, and citations aplenty. The WWE articles based on their pay per views, all have prose including backstory, a bit of a summary of the matches, as well as listed results. If the MMA editors were prepared to do something similar for the MMA pages, rather than just list the fights and the results, then that might go some way to at least putting them into the same basket as WWE.

With the drastic increase in UFC events over the past few years though, I can understand the wiki editors arguments against a standalone artice for each and every event, sometimes there are now 3-4 UFC events in a month, as compared to the earlier schedule or one event every month or two. So, I think that merging articles would be a good idea, but I think they should be merged into several small articles each year rather than just one big one.

For example, something along the lines of:

• UFC numbered events (2012) - Gives UFC 142 to 145
• UFC on Fox events (2012) - Gives UFC on Fox 2 & 3
• UFC on FX events (2012) - Gives UFC on FX 1 & 2
• UFC on Fuel TV events (2012) - Gives UFC on Fuel TV 1 & 2
• UFC forthcoming events (2012) - Gives everything from UFC on Fuel 3 up to UFC 154, which are moved into the other relevant pages as they occur.

Here you can see these kind of breakdown articles would not get cluttered with ~30 events on the one page, which is a major criticism of the current omnibus article, which could event be kept as a summary of the year and link through to the above pages etc.

If people wanted to (eventually) go back and merge past pages you could break it down into Numbered events for past years, Spike and Versus events etc as well.

One thing the current omnibus article really lacks (in my opinion) are the posters, I think they are crucial to the look and feel of the pages and help separate one article/event from the next.

So there you have the suggestions from an outside observer (tldr version);

• Don't have individual pages (unless an event becomes extra noteworthy)
• Categorise them into common sense sub articles which won't get too long
• Add images for the posters and some prose going into more detail about the background of the events, the leadup, the matches themselves, and maybe even post event fallout etc rather than just result listing. JShep2010 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary section break

90% of what you've proposed for a solution is covered by the above mentioned proposal that was suggested by Mtking.

Having the "Future Events" sub article just seems a bit overkill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the event is announced we typically will be able to know what "bucket" it belongs to. Yes the numbered events article will get exceedingly large depending on how many we have in a single year, but it's encouragement to develop the content for the individual events so we can split them at a later date.

Because the posters are copyrighted we have to dance around the issue of a free licence or a fair use rationale.

In short, typically as part of an individual article when we include a poster, it's because a Fair Use Rationale can be written explaining that the poster is important to the subject at hand for understanding why the subject is important or to help identify the subject if someone goes out to buy the product.

In the Omnibus articles we might be able to include a image of the logo that the promotion is using for the year (if it changes) but we really can't justify the posters.

I apologize for the very long winded explanation, but I'm happy to explain the ins and outs of the policy. I still admit I'm pretty green behind the ears, but I can speak quite well about certain sections of the tau of the community. Hasteur (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think given the nature of the omnibus article we should be okay with a poster for each event that doesn't have it's own article. If an event gets split off I don't think we can use the FUR poster on both, it should go only on the event article. I think the images in the big article will probably need to be smaller than a stand-alone article though. Ravensfire (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the FUR for having a poster for each even in the omnibus is going to fly as the posters are now illustrating a section of content by depending on the good graces of Fair Use to get the display. WP:NFCC gives the exact listing of what we must do in order to include an image. It would probably be a good idea to get a pre-approval at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before the issue of posters goes any further. Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but sometimes I'm an optimist, even around here! I think floating the question over there would be a an ideal way to head off possible drama though! Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Amending requirements for WP:MMAEVENT

Notability proposal

Below is a proposal to modify WP:MMAEVENT to read and/or include the following:

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

Individual events are not inherently considered notable. Articles about individual MMA events can exist if they meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The criteria below provide guidance as to how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may apply to MMA events:

• Inclusion Criteria: For an event to be considered notable enough to warrant its own dedicated article, the article should have at least one source that is reliable, is independent of the subject, and discusses the event and its significance. This means that one or more sources pass reliable-source guidance and are not primarily MMA-related, and the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results. Websites such as Sherdog.com are allowable, and preferable, for sourcing facts. However, they should not be used to establish notability as their scope is limited to MMA events. This would apply to any website that is either exclusively or predominantly dedicated to covering only MMA or similar sports. Sources such as ESPN or Sports Illustrated or other sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability, as would be any normally independent source such as general-interest newspapers, magazines and major news websites.

• Article Content: Individual event articles should not be created until they are announced through one of the fully independent sources as mentioned in the inclusion criteria. Individual event articles should contain enough prose so that non-MMA fans can understand what led up to the event occurring, the individual fights themselves, any aftereffects of the event, and the significance of the individual event.

Discussion

• Support as nom. The only revision I made from Trey's original proposal was the removal of the 3 to 4 paragraph requirement. This proposal addresses what is required to create an individual article and what sources are needed to determine information that goes beyond routine coverage. If anyone thinks the 3 to 4 paragraph requirement should be reinstated to the Article Content section, please state so in your comments. 131.62.10.30 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC) _{Hurr durr, wasn't logged in...} Ishdarian 03:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Again forgive me if I'm doing this wrong, but if ESPN is fine as per "sources that cover multiple sports are fine to demonstrate independent notability", wouldn't Fox Sports be in the same boat and ok to source from to demonstrate notability? They cover multiple sports etc. JShep2010 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a wierd one. While Fox Sports does cover multiple sports, it also does the sports reporting FX and Fuel TV, so it isn't fully independent. Plus, it only really covers UFC, not MMA as a whole. Ishdarian 05:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fox partnership with UFC is fairly new/recent. This isn't to say that they are "independent", but shows that the landscape is constantly changing as we would expect of a high-growth sport. The coverage of UFC on wiki was frankly ahead of its time several years ago (ie akin to ground floor), which is why it's currently such a high-traffic resource. What's ironic about this whole situation is that had it been exposed to the same AfD campaign then, it would've never made it through at all; while at the same, in couple years with growing popularity all the new entries might be safe from AfD with current rules. What we really should be building here is a consistent framework for all sports in such a scenario, not hoping that trivial changes can solve a novel problem. Agent00f (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reject. I seriously doubt the prior regulars Newmanoconnor named above from the stakeholder side cares at this point, since participating for them is just lending credibility to a process spear-pointed and dominated by the same old people who will be saddle with no burden from the decisions. This is my 2c on just a few of the main issues:

1. RfC for entry/event in this format goes hand in hand with the omnibus as it exists now. Doing this first basically provides a backdoor through which omnibus will pass much more easily as-is in the future.
2. The rules are long yet ambiguous. eg "enough prose so that non-MMA fans can understand". There is no brightline test established at all. This leaves most all of the same kinds of wiki entries still vulnerable to current deletionists and new ones. This doesn't look like a compromise at all, just a codification of what one side of the divide is currently content with: vague rules open to interpretation.
3. Some elements are simply arbitrary. eg "the coverage is about the event in a way that is more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results". For example UFC 142 and 143 both contain contests critical to determining future events (therefore a reader interested in one will generally be in the other), but an editor at some random "mainstream" site might just happen to write on one and not another. So even though the two are functionally equivalent to the sport as a whole, the outcomes of this rule can be drastically different.
4. It still fundamentally considers MMA to be exactly the same as any other sport, when one of the numerous reasons there's a conflict is because it's not. Even admin Dennis himself admitted above that the goal is to provide a solution amiable to the unique circumstances in the sport (like sequentiality).
5. I can't see how this solves any of the basic problems which've hampered results in the past, other than the claim that "something was done" from a bureaucratic perspective. It'll only breed and provoke the same conflicts in the future.
6. If it's not yet clear, this is a terrible RfC because it's as much the completely wrong approach to take as it is inconsiderate in the details. Misses the forest entirely for the trees, and they seem to be powerline posts and not actually tree. For example, since these ambiguous rules are prone to AfD, there's no real motivation to split from the omnibus, creating a moral hazard against improving an already terrible design.
7. To be fair though, because the proposal is so generally useless on its own, not much harm can come of passing it in and of itself.

This isn't a problem which can be trivially solved by considering a couple trite points at time, otherwise we wouldn't need to be here. Somewhat complex issues require more sophisticated problem-solving, and I don't see any of that ATM. A minimal level of domain knowledge/expertise also helps when resolving non-trivial issues.

As an aside, can the other admins and whatnot watching this see to it that Mtking and Treygeek don't wholesale delete this like my former comments on the page? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Refutation Here is a point by point refutation

1. "RfC supports the Omnibus as it is now, providing a back door" We're codifying the informal consensus about the Omnibus articles so that editors who want to come along and edit/create a stand alone event article will be informed via the formal consensus that the best way for the events to live is to start as a section in the omnibus.
2. "No bright line tests" We're writing a guideline (which is deliberately vague) and not a rule (which is hard and fast) for the reason that it's better to leave semi-nebulous guidelines that can be discussed than a hard and fast rule which doesn't allow for discretion or discussion.
3. "UFC 142 and UFC 143 are important because they determine future events" Looking at UFC 142 a significant amount of the prose is of the form "Fighter X was scheduled but couldn't make it" type. The only valid prose in my mind is the minor issue about Johnson/Belfrot fight. I would argue that UFC 143, with a little more prose expansion is potentially appropriate for a split but would definitely discuss it to establish the consensus first. UFC 142, however I think would be better served in the incubator of 2012 in UFC events. We cannot control what reliable sources are going to write about, we only can mix together what they report via cited statements.
4. "considers MMA to be the same as any sport" The entire purpose of the RfC is to get a change put in for the Specific Notability Guideline (SNG) that MMANOT has become. Typically editors bow to the SNG over the General Notability Guideline as the SNG is written in terms specific to the issue at hand.
5. "can't see how this solves any of the basic problems" While I agree that the single purpose editors who want to puff up a specific promotion probably won't read this, editors who are committed to improving the quality and quantity of coverage of MMA on wikipedia should have the guideline in their mind at all times so that time and effort are not wasted with repeated process
6. "no reason to improve","moral hazard to spliting" We'd love to hear a proposal from the MMA community that doesn't look like a specific loophole that causes the quality of articles to diminish. Each proposal so far (in my mind) has been a combination of WP:ILIKEIT and requests to keep the status quo. The status quo is not working as evidenced by the AfD nominations and the AfDs being resolved by removing or merging the previous content.

Finally, please consider striking your suggestions about the proposal being useless, that editors outside the MMA domain can't solve this problem, and that Mtking and Treygeek may delete your comments. To use a platitude: People who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks. This RfC has been advertised on the Adminsitrator's Noticeboard where experienced editors and Administrators keep an eye on lower grade issues. It does not help coming to a solution if bad blood is being tracked into this RfC. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

1. This statement doesn't refute my claim but rather supports it, so not sure why it's called a refutation. This is a backdoor for omnibus as it exists right now.
2. Same. Just a suggestion: please consider using a work other than "refutation" to describe this, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.
3. Same. It's hard to see how a bunch of ambiguous statements up for interpretation serves to refute the claim that the subject is still up for interpretation even with passage of these rules/guidelines.
4. Again, what is this supposed to refute? A "refutation" is something along the lines of: "It's not true this isn't MMA specific, here are the very domain dependent bits in the rule: X Y Z". A generic statement that applies to anything is not "specific".
5. This is a classic example of ad hom fallacy. "Don't listen to these 'SPA' guys, we know better". This is also completely incorrect given that the "we" clearly have no domain expertise (integral to knowing better), nor have any future stake. Is this meant to be a parody of terrible logic? On the plus side, this is actually a refutation, just an atrocious one.
6. This still doesn't refute any claim. But given that alternative proposal are either ignored or wholesale deleted as matter of habit, I don't see how it's even meaningful statement.

In summary, this "refutation" basically reinforces everything in my comment above. Also, there's no need to strike the fact this RfC is useless since that's quite relevant to the RfC, and the plead to stop Mtking and Treygeek deleting comments is based on clear prior precedent and still a concern. The claim that domain knowledge is useful to solving domain-specific problems is basic logic. IMO a dose of basic logic would be helpful to this process Agent00f (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I would like the guidelines to have included a bit of help on identifying sources that are more than routine, but that can come later. Mtking ^(edits) 08:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I also would like to see us flesh out reliable sources that are more than routine, and while I'm ok with the removal of the 3-4 paragraphs guideline, I would like to see some language that isn't quite as strict in regards to using prose and sufficiently covering what the article is about, outside of routine coverage, so that someone completely unfamiliar with MMA/UFC could understand the significance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comments

1) I think I will support this, but will weigh in a bit later. The wording could be simplified.

2) "...more than just routine news reporting of the event and/or its results..." Could you give an example of "non-routine news reporting"?

3) Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual Events is a section in an essay. It appears, visually, like a guideline. It has a shortcut. It lays down the law. But it is an essay. An RfC on amending an essay??? Is the intention to move this, if supported, to a proper guidelines section? Sorry to ask such a stupid question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For point 2, see my !vote for what I think would be some examples. For point 3, that's pretty common for most projects. Projects can't override Wiki-wide policies, but they can explain them in better terms specific to their area. Giving good guidance on how to determine notability for fighters, events and organizations should mitigate issues and help all WP editors review the articles. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cautiously endorseThe hard part about this is the non-routine coverage. An article that says the event is happening with fights X, Y and Z is routine. An article that says the results were A, B and C is routine. An article that says something unusual happened at an event is not routine. Ravensfire (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"non-routine coverage" = "something unusual happened". Okay. Then I guess my next questions are: Do unusual things happen at MMA events? If so, out of the roughly 200 events listed at Template:UFC Events, how many had something usual happen? 1%? 50%? 99%? I'd like to know what kind of impact this clause is likely to have. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The way I'd define non-routine coverage as anything besides who's on the card, who had to withdraw from the card, results of the fights. I would consider missing the weight limit by 400 grams non-routine coverage. I would consider accusations of greasing that did lead to disciplanary hearings as non-routine. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, looking at a random bunch of articles from Template:UFC Events, it appears that roughly 80% would be AfD fodder if this were approved. What percentage do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be UFC 146. You had a fighter removed for failing a pre-fight drug test. That, to me, is non-routine and was covered by mainstream media. I'm not going to try to estimate the percentage because honestly, it doesn't matter. If you've got an event where the coverage is routine, I've got serious questions if it should be in a stand-alone article. If it's a second or third tier event, that coverage needs to be even higher. For example, in a lower tier UFC event, having a new or struggling fighter fail a drug test probably isn't as notable as a fighter failing for a major UFC event and may not be enough. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Actually, can't agree with your statement "...it doesn't matter...". I think most editors are concerned about the impact this new guideline would have on the existing articles at Template:UFC Events. Again, I see roughly 80% AfD fodder if this were approved. What percentage do you think? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From a pure drama perspective, yeah, I know it's going to be there. I don't doubt that. I honestly see this RFC more as a clarification, not a change, of what's in MMAEVENT. It pretty bluntly says that MMA events are not notable except ... The change is that it's actually being applied. (See my comment on ANI in the walled garden sub section) The really useful part of the RFC (to me) is making that section clear with easy to understand examples of what's routine and what's not routine. The "it doesn't matter" statement is me simply being blunt. There's a lot of merging that will need to be done and I'm hoping the result of this RFC will make that process easier and reduce the drama. And with some concrete examples, I hope that it will help the MMA proponents to shift from obstruction to knowing what to look for to move the event back into a stand-alone article. My suggestion would be for a thread to be started for each year, listing the articles to be merged and not merged based on the current contents. Give folks a week to find material that would justify a non-merge, then merge the remainder. Once everyone is used to the process, have 3-4 threads open at a time for different years / organizations. I totally expect pushback, hostility and everything else we've seen but the articles your percentage refers to have issues. There is absolutely no denying that. I'm not denying other articles in other areas DON'T have problems (again, see that walled garden section) but we're talking about these articles here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement basically validates the claim this RfC already assumes the omnibus as-is is a done deal despite lack of any closure (unless stealth deletion via admin is equivalent to closure now). It's a classic begging the question argument. It also validates the claim that this RfC solves nothing. A load of AfD's on all existing events with 10 arguments citing 5 rules which all contradict each other is exactly the same as before. Can someone please answer why we're wasting time here better spent addressing roots of the larger issue instead? Agent00f (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI anything is blocked for me because I'm in China.

This is bad news.

What is the aim of this RfC? To encourage higher quality articles? Few new articles will pass non-routine coverage. I think the aim also is to get rid of articles. It is to legalize the execution. I see the same guideline as before, but with consensus it becomes law. That way, mass AfDing per "fails MMANOT; duplicates omnibus" can begin. It seems spinny and inclusionist as it is worded in positive terms. In fact it is a poison pill for the bulk of existing MMA articles. If it's being promoted on the grounds that new articles will be stronger, that's little compensation for the tatters that will be the MMA project here. What is the desired outcome of the RfC? To rid Wikipedia of fansite articles? They look like ordinary articles to me.

This is an opportunity missed. The opportunity is to compromise by protecting existing UFC event articles, at least for some time into the future. Then to encourage new MMA project recruits. Reinforce the existing articles. Produce quality. To become the go-to place for MMA information, just as Wikipedia is for every other topic.

If this passes, I see mass AfDs, MMA Project members leaving, an army of potential members never joining to improve articles, and worst of all, over half a billion clicks a year that redirect to omnis that nobody wants to read. Prose summaries? They will close the tab.

Like a restaurant that insisted on presenting only dishes it liked, the customers left. Making articles in the form that some personally prefer is second to making articles that people want and use. Function is paramount. If you don't believe me, allow me to design a chair and then invite someone to sit on it. The point will be driven home. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that if anything, the AfDs will be closed as merge to Omni per WP:MMANOT for the less notable ones. Why should those who invest time in trying to improve articles and save them from the dreaded Delete have to cater to those who aren't going to invest time in improving articles and occasionally read WP? Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The aim of the RfC is simple, to clarify notability guidlines for MMA events. What comes after that is a continuation of what types of changes to make and what to leave in place so we don't have mass AfD's. Can we please try and stay focused on the RfC and how the notability guidelines should read? Wikipedia is not the go to source for any one type of information, it's FUNCTION is that of an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's purpose is to serve people unfamiliar with a topic, referenced information about that topic. It absolutely functions to serve those who have little to no knowledge of a subject.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The is completely wrong. For example, most of the technical subjects on the site (eg the Liouville function, or Soft Heaps) are completely inaccessible to novices and seem to be written for its own audience. Most contain sophisticated terminology which only references material of equal obscurity. However, due to the intimidating nature of their subject, they're less accessible to deletioninist's "ENCYCLOPEDIA" reasoning and actions. So the logic seems to be that we need to make MMA entries far more obtuse to protect them. It's also wrong that all individual entries must explain themsevles. For example, if someone doesn't know what an MMA event consists of, or how the sport works, then there's the UFC entry (linked from the event already) to provide context, and the MMA link from there to provide further background. Agent00f (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, it's pretty obvious not a lot of informed thinking went into this proposal, and as a result it's extremely shallow and prone to massive problems. For example, per my reply to Ishdarian above, had we been doing this a bit back, FOX would've been considered an "independent" source, and many/most event might've used them as their "1 or more" requirement. However, one business partnership later (which is regular occurrence in the media world, eg. CBS), and all those articles would be up for an AfD campaign. Imagine if ESPN partners with UFC in the future (quite possible on Xbox), then that would be useless as a notability source, too, even though the sport is only gaining notability with these deals. This proposal only makes any sense if we ignored any domain knowledge or logic, so it reflects poorly on wiki as a whole if it passes regardless. Agent00f (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What ever happened with Wales' grand idea? "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." 76.103.153.126 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, if the only thing that would be in the article for an event is when the event was, who fought and how the fights turned out, then they should be in the omnibus. If there's more useful information in the article then you've probably got something that goes in it's own article. Wikipedia is NOT the source for full sports results. It's an encyclopedia. Hence the WP:ROUTINE that various people keep trying to ignore. We LINK to sites that provide the full sports results. Ravensfire (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we're all already assuming this RfC is irrelevant and moving on to the omnibus, it was noted many times before that if everyone already agree that an omnibus format is acceptable, then the same information with entries split in careful formatted and consistently linked manner should also be acceptable. There's no functional difference and the presentation is superior. However the problem was that this argument required some minimal level of logical capacity to understand, rather than just blind acceptance of existing guidelines designed to solve other problems. Agent00f (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent, We all are not assuming this RfC is irrelevant. You certainly have the right to think that and state so yourself,you do not speak for any other editor. Also, this is not a forum to discuss anything other than the RfC,opinion on the RfC, suggestions for improvements about the RfC, etc.Please move your comments that have gone past this subject matter above the RfC or delineate it below. I would really like your input into a solution, and while I appreciate your comments being much shorter, you aren't being constructive or productive. If you don't like the proposal at RfC comment on those specific proposals,come up with a different idea,something. Shortened diatribes and soapboxing are still just that.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to speak for anyone since their comments speak for themselves. Is your request that everyone stop talking about the broader issues/implications or just me? Also, I would appreciate it if you can reply to my other very substantive comments (incl direct response to you) instead of only jumping in when it's convenient to do so (eg. "me too" voting). Ignoring others' constructive comments is a sign of DISRUPTIVE editing. Thanks.

Also, as I've noted several times, my "different ideas" above were either ignored or wholesale deleted by the agenda setting team. I hesitate to post them here again given this history and since you're already berating others for moderately long ideas not directly derivative of the RfC. Agent00f (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur:

• "...merge to Omni per WP:MMANOT..." still means that UFC XXX will be removed from the mainspace.
• "...for the less notable ones..." I would still like your opinion on what percentage of existing articles would be nommed for deletion.
• "...Why should those who invest time..." The whole point is to improve the articles, and to start an initiative to do so. Deleting or redirecting them will likely mean the end of that article at Wikipedia forever.
• "...and occasionally read WP..." I don't understand.

Newmanoconnor:

• "...The aim of the RfC is simple..." Swap "simple" for "prima facie" and I agree. There is an underlying reason.
• "...What comes after..." That is exactly what we should be discussing now, not after. The likely outcome if this RfC if approved obviously highly germane to this discussion, and should be made clear here and now.
• "...Wikipedia is not the go to source..." In reality, it is.
• "...is to serve people unfamiliar with a topic..." It is far more general than that. It is used by children and researchers alike.

Anna, I'm not sure how to address your assertion that there is some conspiracy underlying the RfC, we are simply continuing on the path we were on with Dennis. After RfC we hammer out how to organize Omnibus pages, multiple ones. Then we tag articles which don't meet notability with Merge discussions,Then we merge and rebuild the Omni's as best we can to have the same information and continuity that the single articles have. It is quite simple. You also are well aware we have tried to discuss the ins and outs of the project as a whole, only to be disrupted by nonconstructive participants,solving the problem in steps is the best route forward under these conditions, and an essay on policy like WP:MMANOT is to WP:GNG is not LAW. We could go merge any of these pages we want right now without discussion and work on the omni's. The whole point of the RfC is to hear out valid criticism,other ideas,etc. This is how I came to support keeping the click through chronology even on the Omnibuses. Wikipedia is NOT the go to source for any single topic, it is not an MMA database,it is not a fansite. Page hits are irrelevant,this is an encyclopedia. You are correct it is used by children, another reason to hold it to a high encyclopedic standard.Newmanoconnor (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ravensfire:

• "...only thing...who fought and how the fights turned out..." Click on a few random UFC XXX articles. The vast majority contain far more information than that.

• Agent00f :

• "...every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge..." Yes. Deletionists haven't quite addressed that.

• I didn't write this, but of course agree with its general sentiments. The only justification towards construction of a better site deletionists have ever provided is that omnibus (not this RfC, I agree) potentially saves entries from their own actions. This seems more like a threat than a compromise/consensus. Agent00f (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• "...this RfC is irrelevant..." Not so. The result may be the removal of hundreds of existing articles, and gutting the entire MMA Wikiproject.

• True, this is why I pointed out above this is essentially a backdoor for omnibus to "save" us. However, given that the deletionists have already been stealth deleting events and removing info at will, it's hard to imagine the RfC in and of itself can provide even more free reign in this regard. Agent00f (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To proponents of this RfC:

• Please be transparent about the intent of this RfC. It appears to have a deletionist agenda:

• Is it to create a law that will facilitate the deletion/redirection of existing articles?
• If this is approved, will you initiate mass action on these articles? If so, it is important for those considering approval to know how many existing articles will be affected. Please don't avoid this question, as it will be you who will affect these articles. If you can judge then, you can judge now. What percentage? Please be forthright.
• I would support this RfC if deletion of UFC (the top level events of the sport) articles were excepted. A campaign to recruit project members and improve the articles, should then be undertaken. As for the rest of the MMA article, let the chips fall as they may.

To those considering this RfC:

• I think it is essential to know, in advance, the likely fate of existing MMA articles if this is approved. If proponents make it clear that they will use this for mass deletions/redirections, and you support it, so be it. But, it's important to know.
• Consider a proviso allowing inherent notability for UFC events. This is the highest level of the sport. There are only two dozen per year. They all inherently pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna, I had no ill intents when I filed this RfC. I was hoping something on this level would help protect most higher-tier events, namely the numbered UFC fights. I spent the last couple of hours digging for sources on some of the numbered fights, and the lack of sources outside of mma-fan/stat sites is making me a little squeamish. Most MMA events are not notable by nature, but I was hoping most UFC fights would fit into this criteria. I'm not comfortable with giving a percentage on what I think, but the number of events that would fail miserably is actually pretty alarming. Ishdarian 02:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• We don't necessarily need inherent notability. The general idea behind omnibus is actually sound (pile more stuff onto a page to save it). The default promotion pages pass scrutiny, so basically by aggregating their events onto the same page, it all does (kind of stupid, but whatever). It's only the specific interpretation of this omnibus which has been stealth-implementated that's terrible. If we simply acknowledge that representing this same information in a better way (with clear links up to the main/default page and fwd/back to sequential event instead of anchor tags, it's all basic html/wiki), it should also pass scrutiny. This doesn't allow for random one-off events without description that deletionists fear while preserving most existing content as long it passes this "template" standard. As a brightline testable guideline, it's safe from ambiguous interpretation, and it fosters an environment where sets of event pages can naturally grow instead of throwing them to the dogs of AfD if they try to splinter off. Agent00f (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ishdarian. Forgive my assumption. I should soften the statement by saying that the architects will likely use this as a tool to remove articles.

I searched for UFC event article sources in foreign languages. I tried www.google.com.br/ and saw plenty, plenty of sources. I suspect that using .jp and others would bring more than enough references. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty alarming percentage? Agree. So what is the intent? Millions of keystrokes over many months aiming to remove these articles. That same energy could be spent on an organized, coordinated campaign to communicate and with the MMA community who visit these articles and dwell at the forums. This massive, untapped force is still there, waiting. This diplomacy, and liasing would be, by definition, constructive. This RfC is, by definition, destructive. It is legislation to destroy articles. It's not too late to take a better course.

Furthemore, passage of this guideline will still not result in definitive grounds for deletion or redirect. It only bolsters the deletionist position. All UFC events (and many others, I suspect), inherently pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT. So, lengthy AfDs will continue with inconsistent rough consensus due to differing value judgements.

Again, proponents and architects: What percentage of existing MMA article do you intent on challenging if this is passed. Please don't say you don't know, because if this is passed, five minutes later, you will have a very, very good idea of that percentage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This only brings MMA into line with other sports, where the GNG and WP:ROUTINE applies to such individual articles; only the most important matches, such as league championship matches, receive articles. (As to that, even those non-championship matches which provoked famous incidents, such as the Richard Riot or the Soccer War, do not merit and have not received their own articles.) To address some of the points above:

  What percentage of articles will be challenged if this passes? All those people find which do not qualify for articles under appropriate notability criteria, I expect, while those which do qualify will - and should - be left alone. Would you be so kind, Anna, as to articlulate how this is pertinent to the issue?

  On the so-called "deletionist agenda" ... what the hell? Have we truly descended to the depths of American politics, where shouting "You're a liberal! A liberal!!" at a political opponent not only is considered a thoughtful and valid rebuttal, but is seen to automatically discredit whatever that person says? If it really bothers you that it is possible on Wikipedia to delete articles, then I recommend you surf on over to WP:DELETE and seek consensus to overturn the process altogether, or else patronize one of the Wiki mirrors which forbids it altogether. Until that time, there are those of us who will continue to seek the removal of articles which do not pass policy or notability muster, because we believe that a quality encyclopedia is both easier to manage and worth more to the world than a ton of wastepaper. Ravenswing 04:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Numerous articles pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT, yet fail WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ROUTINE. How you weigh it out reveals whether you are a deletionist or inclusionist. Call it what you want. This proposal was tabled by those with a clear intent to delete.

When a law is passed in the real world it is obvious why we seeking to know the intent and likely outcome. It's pertinent because it helps us decide whether or not to support it.

I am not trying to "discredit whatever that person says" with the term deletionist. Deletionism is not a dirty word, nor is its opposite. I am not saying which is right.

I don't see article managment as a significant factor.

I don't see individual UFC articles instead of omni summaries as turning enwp into a ton of wastepaper.

Descending to the depths of American politics is not possible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Let's examine WP:GEOSCOPE, which you keep claiming validates these articles: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." How these articles pass that I cannot see; I expect you would have a very hard time finding many non-MMA fans who would agree that your bog-standard UFC PPV has a "long-term impact on a significant region of the world."

Further, you claim that these articles pass WP:EFFECT, which holds "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." The notion that 99.9% of athletic competitions could possibly have a lasting effect on world history or culture is well to the left of farcical. The most renowned of championships, between the most prominent competitors, means only that one side wins and one side doesn't. That (say) Anderson Silva won his bout at UFC 134 meant only that he remained the champion, and Yushin Okami didn't upset him; the long term impact of this - even on UFC - is effectively zero. Did Silva winning materially change how mixed martial arts are fought or organized? Was the popularity of UFC measurably and provably affected? Did it change how the organization operates? No, no and no ... yet this was the most recent title victory of arguably the UFC's greatest champion.

Certainly "deletionism" has been used as if the term was self-evidently bad, many times above. "This leaves .. the ... entries still vulnerable to current deletionists." "they're less accessible to deletioninist's [sic] ... actions." "ignored or wholesale deleted by the agenda setting team" "Deletionists haven't quite addressed that." "the deletionists have already been stealth deleting events" "It appears to have a deletionist agenda" Over and over again, this rhetoric persists. It is unworthy, it is uncivil, and it is disruptive. Ravenswing 05:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you make some good points. You didn't respond to my 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th points. I gather you agree then. :)

Re: "Deletionist". I never knew it was considered derogatory by some. I would never have used the word if I thought it would offend people. Maybe "those who lean toward deletion in judgement calls" would be better. Seriously, no offence intended by me.

You quote "long-term impact on a significant region of the world.", but the rest of the sentence is "...or a significant widespread societal group...". Those groups are competitors and their support, people from the many facets of the MMA business, followers, etc. You just cherry-picked part of the guideline that favoured your position, and ignored the other.

You quote "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." You interpret that "something else" as "lasting effect on world history". This seems like augmenting or deminishing guideline interpretations depending on whether or not they strengthen your argument.

You refer to my "...your bog-standard UFC PPV...". What is bog-standard? I've never heard that term before. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PPV: We all have them. How we view MMA. How we envision our dear Wikipedia. How we interpret deliberately fuzzy guidelines. ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT are unavoidable. I do however put forth HALF-A-BILLION-VISITORS-A-YEAR-USE-IT and "function supersedes all else".

Anyway, this isn't really the place to argue this. I just wanted those responding to this RfC to be aware of the intent and likely consequences. If all the articles get deleted, so be it. It would have been nice to prevent it before hundreds were created with tens of thousands of hours. This is the first time I've seen something like this. But, I will agree with the community. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm... PPV = Pay-per-view. Ishdarian 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooooohhhhhh Pay-per-view. How embarrassing. I always thought they were saying "paper view". Now it all makes sense. I thought TV was free. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"The notion that 99.9% of athletic competitions could possibly have a lasting effect on world history or culture is well to the left of farcical. The most renowned of championships, between the most prominent competitors, means only that one side wins and one side doesn't. That (say) Anderson Silva won his bout at UFC 134 meant only that he remained the champion, and Yushin Okami didn't upset him; the long term impact of this - even on UFC - is effectively zero. Did Silva winning materially change how mixed martial arts are fought or organized? ". This winning passage from Ravenswing deserves to be highlighted and perhaps surfaced to the wider WP:SPORTS community. Ie. "Only events that change the sport forever are deemed noteworthy". Agent00f (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly I have no idea why people unfamiliar with how rules work are part of a consensus on rule-making. Agent00f (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have no idea why people unfamiliar with Wikipedia feel the need to hijack discussions on rulesmaking with personal attacks. That being said, there is a .sig I've used for many years on VBulletin-style forums: "It is not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we don't agree with what you're saying. Is it that difficult to comprehend the difference?" Ravenswing 05:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's notable that I replied to this situation and quote in detail on the AN page, but didn't get any reply there. In short though, if it's impossible to discern the difference, then the two statements are functionally equivalent. Agent00f (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you provide a concise answer of how you define "quality"? The current ufc events are presented in a consistent and usable manner to many many users/contributors. The annual omnibus above is by every account less user friendly while providing no more (and in fact less) information. The only reason provided for why it's supposedly acceptable is that it meets rules obviously designed to solve somewhat dissimilar problems. The RfC in particular has the effect of removing some articles in coherent set but not others, which ruins wiki's value as a complete reference. So is your definition of "quality" "meets arbitrary rules" rather than something to do with actual value or usefulness? This is not a rhetorical question. Agent00f (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: A "concise" answer? No. Not only are my views on the same not amenable to soundbites, they are not relevant to this discussion, which I was under the impression was about these proposed notability criteria. That being said, whether an article is presented in a "consistent" or "usable" manner has nothing to do with this discussion either, which is solely on the grounds of whether the subject is notable or not. There are many articles that have been written in clear, consistent prose, and yet the subjects are not notable, thus failing pertinent criteria. Now I see that you're not only inexperienced with Wikipedia, but you have almost no experience with article building (with only 280 edits, and only two in articlespace). While reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR would no doubt prove informative, I especially commend to you WP:ITSUSEFUL, as an example of a generally discredited argument at AfD. Ravenswing 05:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you please read those entries before recommending them to others? The fifth pillar of wiki is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules.", and WP:ITSUSEFUL explicitly states: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Would it be too forward to state that you seem to demonstrate almost no familiarity with the basis of your stated purpose as a deletionist on wiki?

• It would not be “forward” so much as just another of the ad hominem attacks of which you seem entirely too prone to make. I have created over five dozen articles, I am in the top 1000 of Wikipedia’s contributors, I have over 35,000 edits (20,000 in articlespace), I am a multiple Triple Crown winner for bringing articles to FA/GA status and amassing DYKs on the Main Page, and should I seek commentary as to what my purpose on Wikipedia is or lectures on reading comprehension, I will not seek it from someone who has never once improved an article.

  As it happens, WP:IAR is the last refuge of those with no valid arguments to make; they generally blow right past the “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia” part and go straight to the “ignore it” clause. To quote, “"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged ... In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus ... Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.”

  As far as WP:ITSUSEFUL goes, “If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion” (emphasis mine) is indeed in that commentary. If reasons are given - you have, in fact, proffered none to explain why this information is necessary to include and why Wikipedia needs to be the place where it is presented, however much it violates several policies and guidelines.

  Finally, while you are so eager to discuss the agenda of others ... what about yours? It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to improve articles - you never have improved an article. It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to create MMA articles - you never have. You’re not even here to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia - your commentary has been entirely negative, from trying to shut down AfDs, to trying to discredit editors whom you perceive as opposing your agenda, to opposing any proposal to set notability criteria. Would you care to put your labeling and the talk of agendas to rest, sir, or are you comfortable with your own quite blatant agenda - it’s not that you can claim you are on Wikipedia for any other purpose - being the subject of frequent commentary? Ravenswing 07:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, it's just hard to take seriously the reasoning of someone who doesn't understand ad hom fallacy or argument from authority. I've only pointed out that those pages don't say what you seem to imply they do. Perhaps it's possible to argue they don't really mean what they explicitly say, but you really should've done that before misleading others to believe they are authoritative. It's even more difficult to take someone who only selectively replies with such ridiculous petty authority seriously. Please respond first to the dozen or so comments you've ignored previously before calling anyone else out. Defining "quality" in a less circular way would be a good start. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No! No! No! That is a personal attack. You are hurting your own cause! Don't make Auntie Anna cross! Civil and concise! Please! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out which part you feel is the personal attack please? It seems pretty reasonable to point out that terrible reasoning makes for terrible reasons. For example, that rant above had nothing to do with the point that those "recommended" pages seem to refute Ravenswing's own argument. It's similar to claiming that someone who has trouble with arithmetic shouldn't try to argue calculus. Especially we've already gone over the calculus explanations and didn't get any response. Seems like fairly straightforward logic to me. Agent00f (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You said that he "...replies with such ridiculous petty authority...". That is an insult and an attack. "...someone who..." refers to him personally. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, you are flirting with another block. I know you don't want that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The reply was a good example of ridiculous petty authority, as was the one prior. It's pretty evident the writing defers mainly to arguments from authority and repetition and moving goalposts instead of any reasoning or factual observation. Add to this consistently telling others what to do despite no actual mandate to do so. To be fair, there's the one statement that exceptions to the rules should be justified which stands out from this, but that only seems to have been spoken in ignorance of all the reasons provided over the last week why it was justified. They're also the only replies I've received from this user so it's what I could base observation on. Sometimes facts can show persons in a bad light (for example, a DUI arrest record). I don't know him/her personally and frankly don't really care, but the oppose seems unfortunately untrue.

As for blocks, AFAICT from this talk page they're just shopped around randomly until a willing admin is found. For example, it's unlikely someone here will shop for sanctions against Ravenswing's personal statements above, even though they're actual ad hom fallacy. Agent00f (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1) None of that is a reason for personal attacks.

2) Everyone watches everyone around here. 34 people watch this page. Please, my friend. Just be civil. The results are always better. I know it's hard. Sometimes I've wanted to meet Mtking in the octopus and give him a couple of Auntie Anna's famous "foot twists". (Famous because thereinafter the recipient finds it more convenient to walk backward forever.) But am I civil? Yes! I even reverted vandalism on his talk today. Will I badger him? Oh, baby. You got that right! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If this kind of indignant BS is what wiki is about, then it's wiki which needs to take a look at what it's trying to accomplish. Apparently when it comes to civility: pretentious unwarranted authority = A-OK, pointing this out => let's go shopping! Also: actually applying some domain expertise to a problem badly in need of any = irrelevant. Sigh. Agent00f (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be very clear, even if it's repetitive, 1) is incorrect. "Ravenswing is a petty authoritarian" is a personal attack. I do not know Ravenswing nor do I care to. "Ravenswing replied with petty authority" is not. Ravenswing's own statement on this kind of difference is apt here. This seems lost on editors like Blackmane who repeatedly call my comments obtuse (which likewise is just his perspective), yet goes shopping for sanctions for the same thing in others. This kind of behavior is ridiculously persistent on this topic. Agent00f (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A round of applause for Agent00f and Anna Frodesiak, the only people thinking logically. I support the new proposal because a group of editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. I also support the proposal that we should get rid of all MMA articles and ban any fans of the sport. Portillo (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anna, because you responded civilly I will answer your questions

• "still means that UFC XXX will be removed from the mainspace" If you take a look at the BAMMA Events article you will see that when carried out to the letter of the procedure, a Merge/Redirect does not loose any content. First I copy the entire contents of the page (with the exception of a Poster which fails FUR) and paste it into the "Omni". Then I change the original Article (Ex: BAMMA 1) into a redirect pointing at the section in the main article. Then I go to the talk page to place the {{coppied}} template to show from what version text was copied and to where it was copied to perserve the contribution history. Have we done this poorly in the past by forcing a delete? Yes. Can we do better with the Merge/Redirect method? Hell yes!
• "I would still like your opinion on what percentage of existing articles would be nommed for deletion." Ideally 0% will get nominated for deletion, however the ones that are below the threshold should be proposed for merge/redirect. Will there be ones that get nominated for deletion? Sure, but one of the outcomes of the discussion can be a closure for merge/redirect.
• "The whole point is to improve the articles, and to start an initiative to do so. Deleting or redirecting them will likely mean the end of that article at Wikipedia forever." It only means the end of the individual article if the section doesn't get improved to warrant a split of the content.
• ""...and occasionally read WP..." I don't understand." I'm asking why should people who actively edit and contribute to WP should have to bow to the wishes of random editors who will pass through to some other site? Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1. This wasn't done in the UFC case. There's definitely content (like fighter pay, etc) missing in the omnibus. Though I suppose in this is a rather minor point in comparison to just how ridiculously unwieldy those omnibuses are.
2. This is plainly dodging the question. The reality is that they'll be waves of AfD campaigns on this material with votes on personal interpretations of ambiguous rules along party lines. The end result is that it'll leave the space in a mess. How this correlates with "quality" or any kind of wiki standard is a puzzle.
3. Of course, the work to "improve" out of this mess to something coherent again falls to those for the most part not voting here. That's pretty convenient. All of this against the backdrop of persistent AfD's with no brightline rules, btw.
4. Why should people who have zero stake in the outcome, have no interest in the subject, have zero expertise be making decisions for those who do? Wiki is not some grand society where deleting material elsewhere grants one power to lord over others here. Please be reminded this is still a volunteer project where motivation is important in every subject, not a business where people are paid to put up with the kind of structure where elites dictate policy to the plebs. Agent00f (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent, I am not going to dignify your deliberately obtuse posting with a response. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I know, the four points above are too hard to understand. That's really too bad not everyone can grasp the few subject-specific points here because topic related details are important to making subject-RfC decisions. Agent00f (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If I may unwittingly wade into this RfC... I generally believe that the proposal above is acceptable, although I have some concerns regarding the application and interpretation of WP:ROUTINE. I believe WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE are key criteria that demonstrate an event's notability; and I would suggest that said criteria are paramount to WP:ROUTINE in the realm of sports-related articles. The proposal somewhat addresses this (the ESPN, et al. requirement); however, I feel the WP:ROUTINE rationale by itself will likely result in far too many articles being deleted. The underlying issue is really the manner in which MMA is (dis)organized: there aren't formal seasons, nor does it seem that there are annual recurring events or tournaments. So in the case of UFC, it seems as if WP is stuck between WP:TOOLONG 20XX in UFC-type articles and individual articles that are often unencylopedic and full of WP:TRIVIA. As such, I feel the burden of WP:MMAEVENT could be satisfied if independent sources outside the world of MMA cover a top-tier event in depth. None but shining hours (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Anna, sorry for the placement of this comment - there's a lot of not entirely helpful yelling above. In response to your comment about the UFC articles - I did click on quite a few of them before I made my comment about most being just the basic routine coverage. Seriously, I do tend to look through things before making a statement, it's not just blowing smoke. One thing I've found annoying is that there ARE sources that would help some of the UFC articles demonstrate that notability, but the MMA proponents don't bother. They put the event info and results and are done with it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have you considered the idea that these AfD campaigns have been going on for a while might dissuade people from working in this space? Several folks have already communicated to me recently (and I've only really been on this for a week or two) that they simply don't intent to contribute anymore given a group is always looking over their shoulder to delete whatever they've worked on after they're done. Someone with the tenacity I've endure through the harassment and intimidation isn't exactly common, you know? The "neutral" editor hivemindset is frankly disturbing, and you're one of the more reasonable editors. Sigh. Agent00f (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Initial oppose: Reading only the proposal and what is replaces, it appears that the proposed change is more inclusive, changing from "reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event" to only "one of the fully independent sources as mentioned in the inclusion criteria". Having peeked at this from a DRV discussion, this is an immediate fail to me. If that is a mistaken understanding, I'll reconsider, but no other project bases notability on only one independent source. I would support any guideline if it is agreed the guideline would delete 80% of the articles; the content of such articles is very very easy to merge. Someone said merging to articles like "2011 in MMA" would be much preferable and more encyclopedic. JJB 20:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because the principle that more than the now usual coverage for notability be required would be in danger of spreading. The requirement that something be covered by sources outside its own field is pernicious, and its general application would be disastrous to the goal of having a general encyclopedia. I'd rather have these articles than ruin the encyclopedia. What we are really looking for is a rule based on the actual event, not the sourcing, that could be specific to the subject, but I cannot specify what, for I do not know this subject well enough. My own view is that we could simply resolve this by accepting individual event articles at the top level in all sports. This might be 5,000 a year, but our available space is unlimited. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Spliting/collapsing off topic postings from main threads

As has been recommended at WP:AN the way to contain disruptive off topic discussions from derailing productive threads I therefore make the following proposal.

Proposal: Any sequence of posts that is deemed by 3 editors to be off topic or deliberately disruptive to an ongoing conversation may be moved to it's own topic with a small note where the posts were to allow editors to follow the entire conversation if they wish. Reversions against this split of discussion are to be treated as vandalism and subject to the full force of the vandalism removal tool set (including warnings, reporting to the appropriate noticeboard, temporary blocks, indefinite blocks).

Please give a simple yes/no and your signature for this proposal

• Yes Hasteur (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Ravenswing 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Is this meant to be parody? Good thing for the rest of us there are 3 editors who always seem to vote in a block on this topic. It's a mystery why anyone ever claimed they brazenly dominate the agenda to the exclusion of other voices. The only missing piece of this comedy is the rule that it requires 3 editors to pass this proposal. Agent00f (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Off topic and not in line with the procedure for this proposal Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: the comedy is now fulfilled beyond my own expectations. Agent00f (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Off topic and not in line with the procedure for this proposal Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Btw, since you seem to have no compunctions against editing others comments for them, for future convenience you can just mark my ballot the opposite of whatever you're doing by default, so: no. (unless you see fit to change it later). Agent00f (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Striked off topic commentary, left the appropriate part of the ballot Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the proposal

Can someone please clarify if arbitrary violations of policy like TALKO editing (like the strikeouts above) are allowed as "procedure" within any given "proposal"? This is confusing because not a week ago Hasteur et al were threatening final ANI ultimatums for transgressing much lessor statutes, but this week wanton violations seem permissible because they say so. Maybe these kind of thoughts are just the crazy fanboy in me talking. Agent00f (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing between UFC events and non-UFC events

In a nutshell: The 2 dozen annual UFC events represent the highest level of the sport. Make them inherently notable, as a set. Put our energy into developing them. Blow the rest out of the airlock.

• Examples: UFC 138 (easy keep), MFC 28 (nuke from orbit)

Even if the new guideline proposal is agreed upon, it probably won't have enough force to allow bulk redirects or deletions. The time wasting AfDs and merges will continue, without certain results for each. Plus, it will make swiss cheese of the series, which is pointless for all. The problem will go on and on.

We need a definitive and lasting resolution to this problem: Fully developed UFC event articles with prose get articles. Other MMA event articles don't stand a chance unless particularly notable. They are perfect for omnibuses. I will personally liase with the MMA forum people and invite them to become Wikipedians. Once foes, they can become allies and help develop the UFC articles. There are only a couple of dozen a year, so if all the energy is put into those, they should come out well. A neat and tidy, definitive, long-term solution.

I'm quite keen on getting input from neutral, uninvolved editors. In fact, my position on this whole matter will probably fall in line with their view once I hear what they say. I trust the community very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The distinction is completely unnecessary as long as there's a sane omnibus format and brightline rules to kill frivolous AfDs. I'm not sure why you feel there's a need to compromise on these quite reasonable points. Plus I don't think the MMA community at large (which I'm hardly a "member" of, btw) would appreciate such a sellout as first negotiating step anyway. The politics here are relatively simple: people would only want to voluntarily work on this if they don't feel they're getting screwed by a self-appointed elite who don't have their interests in mind. We all know this, which is what makes the process here shockingly bourgeois for a supposedly egalitarian ruleset. Agent00f (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Could you please be more concise and stick to input on the idea? These massive paragraphs are very disruptive and will deter others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? The first two sentences are the concise answer. It's a bandaid solution with an exceptional case which makes it even less tenable as a matter of policy before committee than doing this right. The only way it might pass is because they dislike you less than they dislike me as a counterparty to "compromise". As I've mentioned before, the problems in this affair are non-trivial, mostly on the political/systemic side. I'm not trying to establish some kind of college literacy test for my comments, there's just no way to say it with smaller words. Again, I'm being quite serious. Agent00f (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

90% of UFC articles probably are above the threshold for coverage. We should judge individual articles themselves, not go by "It's UFC, it's inheretly notable" bright line rule. This is what I think. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This. If an article on an event is just WP:ROUTINE results it should be in the omnibus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Do 90% of UFC articles pass WP:ROUTINE? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, MMANOT has done a good job of reigning in excess articles on organizations and especially on fighters which is a great thing. It's mostly the events where there are some issues. Ravensfire (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All good points, UFC is the highest level of the sport, but we should avoid the inherent notability argument. Articles should contain some independent sources to help overcome the WP:ROUTINE coverage from MMA-related sources. More prose demonstrating notability; less WP:TRIVIA.None but shining hours (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Last call for a brilliant idea

I thought inherent notability was a lesser of evils, but yes, not the best thing.

So, with current guidelines, things are a mess. New guideline proposal, same. UFC events will never be a complete set, even with campaign to improve them. AfDs and merges will continue. No side can totally have it their way. Opposition and fighting will continue. MMA forum community still hates us. Article visitors unsatisfied. Nothing's changed. Does anyone see a clear way forward? This time, I'm really considering walking as I have nothing further to offer. Last chance for a clever solution. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

While it doesn't give the quick win, progressively working on the events (wherever they are) and making runs for the fun aspects of WP (Good Articles,Did You Know, Featured articles) are some of the ways to re-invigorate the communities. Hasteur (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only stumbled into this area chasing BigzMMA. The whole MMA isn't my thing. I prefer to make species articles and such, and stay in the mainspace. I stayed to bring balance to the force as I saw Trey and Mtking running circles around the less-wiki-savvy. Now, there are more eyes on things. By the way, where are those two? They always seem to act with a single mind. Maybe they've both checked into a sanitarium to recuperate from this. I've been flipping through brochures myself. Perhaps I'll bump into them. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, I am watching, and am not in a sanitarium, but I am not going to jump in a refute every point, as there is no chance anything I can say will change the views of the fans, they want an article on every mma event, they won't change that, there seams to be an inexhaustible source of SPA's to help that aim. Mtking ^(edits) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The "act with a single mind" comment is humorous, especially since I'm commenting within minutes of Mtking.  ;) I've too been watching this discussion. My personal feeling is that RfCs are a way of getting input from the wider Wikipedia community and not for the same half-dozen voices to continue debating. As it is, I've stated my opinions on the entire situation multiple times over the last couple of months. Therefore, I really don't have anything new to contribute. So, I've forced myself to stay out of this in hopes that we can get opinions from new people involved with Wikipedia as a whole. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no political solution possible until the core clique members also decide to walk and it's unfortunate for the process they're the only ones who won't relinquish grip on the agenda despite all that time on the cross. The technical solution is frankly trivial in comparison; I've probably spent more time on handling the BS/threats/intimidation than it would've taken to reconstruct all the markup (ie templatize) for all the events AND write up guidelines that make sense while consistent with the prior thought process in WP:sports. The work:bureaucracy ratio in this case is on the order of at least two magnitudes as clearly evidenced by months of lead-up to two trite paragraphs that still make a mockery of domain knowledge.

This isn't a problem which can be solved by considering a couple trite points at time. That's the TLDR of why the current party won't be able to find a lasting solution. ATM it seems the best that can come of this one-sided process is they move on claiming success, then everything resets the hard way with the next AfD war, and maybe those next collaborators can consider the problem less superficially. Agent00f (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ppt1973 claims of deletion

I guess since the discussions here are leading nowhere, TPTB have decided to start the outright deletion of pages past, present and scheduled. Ppt1973 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for refactoring your comment, but we're trying to keep discussions on track. Can you please give some examples? Your post as it currently stands seems to stir the drama up instead of trying to explain the problem. Hasteur (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC 27 for one. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also UFC 148, UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall, UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida, UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, 27 looks like that was done by an editor who's totally uninvolved with all of this. It's at DRV but quickly heading to endorse. The other four articles are in the omnibus but there really should be a redirect article for each of them directing to the omnibus. If I type in UFC 148, I should go directly to that section of the omnibus, not go to the search page where it suggests that article. I'll work on creating those missing redirects. Ravensfire (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: UFC27. This isn't an isolated action, "totally uninvolved" with all of this. Note how the usual suspects Newmanoconnor, Mtking and Hasteur are all involved in both the deletion discussion and deletion review discussion arguing in favor of deletion. And this time around they don't even bother to set up an omnibus page, but are just outright deleting it form Wikipedia. Ppt1973's claims are spot on. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Look who nominated it - I don't think I've seen them post in this discussion. You're trying to read way more into this than there is. The AFD system is setup to categorize articles so folks who can spot articles in areas they're familiar with an comment. When Mtking and Hasteur have nominated an event, they've already merged it to the omnibus because they don't want to lose the information. The 27 text is available, so someone could start the 2000 in UFC events and merge the contents there before the DRV closes. UPDATE: The 2012 event articles listed have been recreated as redirects. Up to the MMA folks to create the 2000 omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

75 IP, can we please refrain from singling out editors and actions and instead focus on improving the articles? Your commentary is not helpful to improving the articles in question, nor is your commentary unfamiliar. Please consider registering/logging in to edit as your commentary is strikingly similar to others and we would hate for you to fall on the wrong side of certain policies here. Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your allegations. It sounds like you're making a veiled allegation of me being a sockpuppet combined with a veiled threat of banning/blocking me. Please phrase your words carefully in the future. 75.101.47.18 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe people are actively deleting articles and information that is obviously of no concern to them. What happened to free access to the sum of all human knowledge? I contribute and donate to wikipedia regularly but these actions of the few imposing their uncompromising views of what wikipedia should be make me reconsider my contributions and donations to this entire project (not just MMA). It's such a shame to see such a great body of work get destroyed by a few people who think they know what's best for everyone. Why not do something productive with your own time instead of destroying what others have worked hard on and doesn't even affect you? Sad. 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not "free access to the sum of all human knowledge". Please review the 5 Pillars to understand better. Hasteur (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And that being said, your paragraph above is your very first edit. What contributions to Wikipedia do you claim to have made, and under what username? Ravenswing 21:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's this IPs first edit. 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. But that's not an answer to the question. Ravenswing 23:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Given how many open threats/intimidation and vindictive AN's have been launched against me (very much doubt the same occurs for someone on the right side of the issue), do you feel that revealing and opening his other contributions to the same would be a smart idea? Agent00f (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy is nice and all, but there's a nice essay called Argumentum ad Jimbonem whose nutshell is that Jimmy founded Wikipedia, but he has given power to the community to determine what the direction for the project is. The 5 Pillars are the community core. Every other policy/guideline/essay flows from that fount of power. As such the sum of all human knowledge is at odds with the Encyclopedia pillar. Don't like the idea? Feel free to open a discussion there to see about getting the pillar changed. Hasteur (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the way this "discussion" has gone, I'd rather not waste my time. 184.71.127.154 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur: "can we please refrain from singling out editors and actions and instead focus on improving the articles?". Herein lies the problem with the kind of "logic" propagated by the AfD crusaders: they start an asymmetric war against a whole subject, wreck havoc on existing content at almost no cost to themselves, and then encourage people to work on articles they've been actively trying to remove via exploitable ambiguities in the guidelines. If this kind of behavior exemplifies the WP:RULES they drop at a whim, then there needs to be a serious examination of what wiki will tolerate in systemic policy abuse. Agent00f (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So you don't feel bound by the rules? Jumping in to conversations you aren't involved in, calling out perceived infractions, not improving the content of wikipedia one bit. Great to see double standard. If anything, the examination of what the wiki will tolerate has already commenced Hasteur (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm bound by the spirit of the rules and a sense of basic humanistic ethics, both of which are violated in abundance on this topic. While I generally don't bother to log in for edits on technical pages (and in fact avoid it now to deny possible vindictive AfDs), it's at least apparent I haven't made things significantly worse for wiki users. Agent00f (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)