Jump to content

Talk:UFC 161

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Format for this page

[edit]

When this event is done lets focus on shaping it up like UFC 140 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without something extraordinary happening I doubt this event will be all that notable. There is no championship match at this event. No one particular match at this event seems to be particularly notable. Coverage of this event is likely to be WP:ROUTINE coverage of fight announcements and results. Striving to improve the article to be like UFC 94 or UFC 140 is great. We'll have to wait to the end of the night to see if the event itself will provide material to actually have a notable article about it. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a title fight is note worthy then this event is also because any of the main/ co-main event fighters would automatically get a title fight in any other promotion if they left the UFC today. The UFC is not a routine organization and it is still growing. Two years ago you could say that the Heavyweight division had competition from other organizations, but now is this the case? Anyways, your right that within UFC this event is routine, but in MMA as a whole it is not. I'll remove the noteworthy tag. Peace 70.127.227.92 (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why exactly is this particular event notable (as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines)? I don't see a specific reason cited by you. Whether or not the UFC is a routine organization is not at issue here. It is whether the news coverage of this particular event is routine. Routine coverage would be the usual fight announcements, play-by-plays and results without much in the way in in-depth coverage of the event and its significance to the (MMA) world. Coverage that I have seen falls in this category. I haven't seen why this particular event is special above other events and no one has bothered to explain why it is. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A title fight in any organization is noteworthy right? If so then "If a title fight is note worthy then this event is also because any of the main/ co-main event fighters would automatically get a title fight in any other promotion if they left the UFC today."
It is all about the fact that the majority of the main card matches in the UFC have a impact on the title fights and all these fighters would be automatic title shot contenders if moving to a different organization. This last Super Bowl was a routine Super Bowl per the news coverage and it was nothing close to the NY Giants beating the Patriots a few years ago, but I bet you would agree that this years Super Bowl is noteworthy if you follow football. UFC has a convoluted quasi-playoff structure. The closer to the main event the closer to championship.
Even for unusual events the UFC and other organizations have the same press coverage. I don't agree that press coverage is a key to defining notability for sporting events or any event periodic in nature.
Is press coverage the only reason for not making this a notable event? This guideline wouldn't even make President Obama a notable figure since all his coverage is routine. Please consider my point, I have considered yours. Peace. 70.127.227.92 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a title fight in a tier-one MMA organization would likely (but not automatically) qualify an event as being notable. UFC 161 does not fall into this case. Coverage of UFC 161 consists of WP:ROUTINE reporting largely from MMA media and would be a borderline WP:GNG case as a result. This article lacks much in the way of "well-sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. Thus, IMO, the event isn't notable as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The press coverage is definitely routine but not localized. Though I do not think press coverage makes this event notable. I believe that this event falls into the first bullet under WP:SPORTSEVENT, and each event is very likely to be a part of a "championship season" for one or more developing fighters. The main event is a part of a series that will lead to and include a championship/title fight.
I disagree that a title fight can not be noteworthy. There are 2-4 title fights a year for each weight class which has the effect of watering down each title fight, and each title fight would never fill up a page like an annual pro event from any sport. The real problem is that the UFC and MMA in general is not structured to neatly fit into the notability guidelines, as (IMO) one event in the UFC has 2-4 notable matches and 4-12 non-notable matches. Also, the UFC is becoming the NFL of MMA but the tier system does not reflect this, so matches not on the main card can be notable in the UFC but usually the co-main events are not even close in the other organizations.
The single event wiki pages are the worst way to meet notability but they are the easiest to develop, build upon, read, and navigate among the series of events. Tying all the events in a month or quarter year in a connected 'prose' would be very nice (and notable), but this is impossible to keep up to date, consistent, and will not have the same number of volunteers to develop it.70.127.227.92 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above one of the people striving to delete MMA pages in particular has admitted that TO HIM no amount of work ever make this event notable, which means that while others work on wiki content, he'll be busy trying to remove their work. No wonder the old MMA editors stopped working here when like that were allowed to poison the well. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for providing constructive arguments as to why UFC 161 is notable as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I could change my stance if someone is able to show why this event is notable per Wikipedia, but it seems no one is able to. And I also don't see anyone contributing to the contents of this article since the event ended. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we continue the discussion? No press notability, but... 70.127.227.92 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your argument is that ALL the boxing, wrestling, motorsports, and other major sports events with pages should be deleted, please make that case, I'm sure those projects would love to hear it. It's not a secret why nobody has been joining the MMA project in the last year or two though the sport's been growing fast. Every couple months on all the major MMA forums a thread comes up that a few people spend all their effort targeting new MMA pages for delete. People keep away because they know it's a pointless political minefield. The few who don't believe it at first like me, come here and see comments like yours (and that BS Hasteur pulled on the 2013 page) and see it's true. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That, sir, is a personal attack. Per WP:PA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." I request that in the interest of fostering a collaberative editing environment you strike your remark. Should you refuse to strike the remark within 24 hours of this request, I will ask an uninvolved administrator to take a look at you actions (especially with regards to your WP:GS/MMA warning) to determine what sanctions are appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it's disturbing that you're following me around and continue to harass me personally with this hysteria, let's not ignore you were officially warned for doing what you did so I'm not the only one with that opinion. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned my name, at that point it was fair game. Please show where I was officially warned, All that was said about me was that I was less than civil. You on the other hand are taking deliberately provocative actions and are in danger of having sanctions applied. "I'm not the only one with that opinion". That's nice, but offsite echo chambers don't count for anything. Your short life on Wikipedia has been nothing but stokig up trouble and seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of wikipedia. Prove me wrong, become a model citizen of Wikipedia, register and I'll be happy to retract my assertions. Don't, and you only prove my assumptions further. Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another go no-where discussion. I'm removing the tag on the article if this discussion is over.70.125.72.141 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UFC_161&oldid=1212724058"