Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_October_2 References

< 2014 October 1

Deletion review archives: 2014 October

2014 October 3 >

2 October 2014

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References – The contested closure is endorsed. – Sandstein 08:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting that the decision be overturned as delete. I've discussed this with the administrator at User talk:xaosflux and given it a lot of subsequent thought, and I'm not in any way criticizing the administrator, but I just think that this is a difficult case that requires consideration of policy, rather than simply looking at !votes, and I ask editors here to look beyond the surface. (By the way, I do not think that relisting would be helpful, in that we would just get more comments that are entrenched on one "side" or the other.)

The closing administrator said in the close and again at his talk page that there was not sufficient consensus to delete. I agree to the extent that the comments in the discussion were approximately equally divided between "keep" and "delete", but per WP:VOTE what matters is the strength of arguments. No number of !votes in a local discussion can override policy.

Editors arguing for deletion agreed that the purpose of the page was to collect sources that would be used to push a POV – not by using sources that merely happened to have a POV in order to provide information about those views on pages where those views should be covered, but to selectively source content, where there are multiple POVs in the reliable source material, only to one POV, to the exclusion of others. (In other words, not merely to provide sourcing for a page about a conservative person, where those sources adequately reflect that person's perspectives, but to provide sourcing about, for example, events that have happened, so as to skew Wikipedia's content about that event to reflect a conservative POV.) Remarkably, all of the editors who argued for keeping agreed with this assessment of the purpose, and none disputed it. There was unanimous agreement in the discussion that this was the intent of the page. Instead, editors arguing for keeping argued either that the sources complied with WP:RS, which was not part of the rationale for deleting, or that the WikiProject has the right to establish its own rules with respect to NPOV, separate from the community as a whole, perhaps to counter systemic bias. In the close, the administrator concluded that the page "is within the scope of a project" and that any editorial issues "can be resolved in the articles". This is a misunderstanding of policy. No WikiProject can unilaterally disregard or modify WP:NPOV.

In the discussion, every argument for keeping was responded to by arguments refuting it. Although some editors favoring keeping responded to editors favoring deletion, the major deletion arguments were not refuted, except by arguing either that the WikiProject has the prerogative of setting its own policies or that NPOV does not matter if sources pass WP:RS. This is an additional reason not to simply count !votes.

The close noted that some delete comments tended towards criticism of the WikiProject as a whole, and that this is beyond the legitimate scope of the deletion discussion. This is basically correct, but an examination of the discussion shows that a decision to delete can be reached even after discounting any comments that go beyond discussion of the specific page.

Taken as a matter of policy, the correct outcome is "delete", and not "keep" or "no consensus".-- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Comment (originally closing admin) - I do not believe that consensus to delete this page emerged during the deletion discussion. I am open to retraction or redaction of my additional closing comments if they alone are at odds. Other then closing the MFD, I have no interest in the specific topics and welcome review here. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Endorse. No sound policy-based analysis compelling deletion. No credible claim that a policy-compliant list of resources on the subject cannot be compiled, or that the defects on the current list are irreparable. I don't see any crucial difference between what's supposedly wrong here and the Socialism Wikiproject's encouraging "using reliably sourced material from socialist-oriented academics and experts" to improve articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply
It sounds to me like you are offering an additional comment in the original discussion, instead of evaluating the closure. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Endorse the closing admins rationale shows no obvious errors in process or judgement. -- Jayron 32 05:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Endorse, seems to me as a reasonable close given the relative strength and policy relevance of the arguments made. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 08:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC). reply
Endorse The close was a good one and I am sure the closer was just being polite in not mentioning that the MFD nomination and delete !votes were exceptionally inapposite. Thincat ( talk) 10:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply
And clearly, you are not being polite. If this is the way consensus is going, I am perfectly comfortable accepting that, but your comment reflects very badly on you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply
That discussion raises two questions in my mind. Firstly, why did the closer say "keep" when his own closing statement explains why "no consensus" would have been better? And secondly, on what basis does the DRV nominator contend that "No number of !votes in a local discussion can override policy"? I think this is a non sequitur, because IAR says the exact opposite and IAR's always been policy.— S Marshall T/ C 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply
I think it was borderline between keep and no-consensus; I included closing statements to attempt an explanation. Are you suggesting relist as the outcome for THIS discussion? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Here is my take on S Marshall's two questions. About the question to me concerning IAR, I certainly am not disregarding IAR. Instead, I am presenting here the argument that was made in the XfD discussion, that one particular policy, WP:NPOV, cannot be replaced by editors at a single WikiProject who decide – and freely agree in the XfD discussion that they have done so! – to violate that policy by promoting one POV. That has nothing to do with IAR, and I continue to maintain that I am correct about it and that the editors here who favor endorsing have failed to grasp that point. As for the closing statement, it seems to me that it tacitly acknowledges some discomfort or uncertainty on Xaosflux's part about whether the close was really correct, as do the statements at his talk as well as here that he would be willing to strike or redact the reasons for his close. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) I genuinely don't know what to think at the moment, Xaosflux; I'm still reading people's views and mulling it over. But I'm not strongly tempted by the "relist" argument. I can't really see how a relist could bring up any arguments that we don't already have before us.
I think you were bold to make a decision rather than a compromise. We could discuss whether your close was overreaching but I'm not tempted by that, because the only place that could go is to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus", and that makes so little real difference that it's not worth spending editor time on.
To my mind the interesting thing here is Tryptofish's point about how NPOV interacts with WikiProjects. I think it's an open secret that WikiProjects can and do have an advocacy role. If you try to delete an article about a role-playing game, then WikiProject RPGs have a habit of showing up to !vote "keep". If you try to delete an article about a pornstar, then WikiProject Pornography frequently turn out in force. And so on. This is where I think that Tryptofish's argument does have some bite, because these WikiProjects often do have their preferred sources, and allowing WikiProjects to pick and choose which sources they apply could indeed represent a NPOV issue, if these sources contain inherent bias.
But I also wonder if that whole question doesn't belong at RfC, because it's got quite a lot of ramifications.— S Marshall T/ C 21:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

(And after reading Tryptofish's point): Xaosflux indicates that he's willing to consider the possibility that his close was wrong and to amend his close; that's correct behaviour for an administrator and I wholeheartedly approve. But the fact that he says this doesn't mean he's been persuaded to amend his close by any of the arguments he's seen at the moment and I don't think it should be taken as a sign of wavering or hesitation.— S Marshall T/ C 21:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you, S Marshall, for your thoughtful comments. About the WikiProjects, I couldn't care less if a Project shows up to argue for keeping a page that is in their content area. The issue is when a WikiProject maintains a list of sources for the purpose of taking pages that are sourced according to NPOV, and changing those pages to only be sourced to a POV on one side, removing the other POV. That's not my speculation or assumption of bad faith. If you look at the XfD discussion, multiple participants said there that, yes, that was the purpose of the page, but that it was OK because the WikiProject has the right to do that. As for the close, I fully agree that it's correct behavior to be open to review, and I think that Xaosflux's behavior has been beyond reproach; I'm just disagreeing with the interpretation. But where he offers to redact or strike his reasons for the close without changing the conclusion, that strikes me as uncertainty about those reasons; your mileage may differ. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

To be clear, I've yet to see anything in this review that would persuade me to decide this was a "delete" consensus. Additionally, my closing statements should not be considered binding on any other discussions--was never attempting to set a precedent. If there is an issue that projects members are steamrolling (unrepresented) overall community members regarding content that is the type of issue I was alluding to as being well beyond the scope of if a project can maintain a list of third party sources or not. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply
You and I agree that problems with editing pages should be dealt with at those pages, and not at XfD. You and I disagree about the nominated page being what you call "a list of third party sources". By way of analogy, XfD has often led to deletion of "attack pages" in user space, whether or not the attacks were carried out in main space or Wikipedia space. And we also disagree about the extent to which your close should have weighed the various comments in the XfD discussion, because surely the simple numbers of "keep" and "delete" were similar. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply
You say: The issue is when a WikiProject maintains a list of sources for the purpose of taking pages that are sourced according to NPOV, and changing those pages to only be sourced to a POV on one side, removing the other POV. That's not my speculation or assumption of bad faith. If you look at the XfD discussion, multiple participants said there that, yes, that was the purpose of the page, but that it was OK because the WikiProject has the right to do that. That's quite serious and if found to be true, it would certainly merit some re-weighting of the arguments. Could you be specific about which arguments you feel this applies to?— S Marshall T/ C 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
[1], [2], and bottom of [3]. In each case, these "keep" comments accepted as fact that the sources carry the POV that they do, but argued that it was within the WikiProject's rights to promote the use of these sources in order to balance out the "systemic bias" that they attribute to Wikipedia as it is now. That balancing is framed as "like-minded editors" presenting sources with a POV as representing the mainstream of reliable source material; see the bottom/third part of this: [4], where it is argued that Breitbart.com is to be used as a "mainstream" source. None of the other "keep" comments disputed or contradicted this. Please understand that I am not saying this in a way that could be generalized to WikiProjects in general. WikiProjects about, for example, socialism, may collect sources about socialist writings, but they are not doing it to make sure that socialist opinions are reflected in pages where multiple opinions exist in the source material. Rather, I am saying it in the context of using sources reflecting a particular POV within present-day United States politics for sourcing pages that are not about that POV, but about factual events, such as things that have happened. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I see in those posts the view that Wikipedia defaults to representing the centre-left. I don't seem to see this suggestion that other sources not on this list should be purged to remove alternative points of view. Could you point out where that occurs please?— S Marshall T/ C 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I see now from your question that my use of the phrase "and changing those pages to only be sourced to a POV on one side, removing the other POV" sounded like I was talking about deletion of other sources. I'm not claiming, for purposes of the discussions here, that this is happening, and I'm also not claiming that it isn't. What I was trying to say was that the organized promotion of sources with only one POV tends to lead to pages where the sourcing is skewed towards that POV. When I said "removing the other POV", I meant decreasing its presence on pages more than deleting it. (Although one can "remove" a POV by deleting the content that reflects it, one can alternatively "remove" it by giving significantly more weight to the opposing POV.) When an editor said that the source list was intended to be helpful in "countering 'systemic bias' eg leftism found in en-wp", that is clearly an argument that the purpose of the nominated page is to foster making edits that will shift the POV of pages in a particular way. One editor's correction of an existing POV can be another editor's pushing of a POV; but there is a problem when the "correction" is organized around the premise that all of the correction should go in one POV direction. It's the difference between a source list about politics that provides sources reflecting all POVs, and a source list that focuses on a single preferred POV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm failing to follow a step in this argument. I can see that the purpose of the list is to help correct articles that editors feel to be biased. I can't seem to see any suggestion that all of the correction should go in one POV direction in that debate?— S Marshall T/ C 08:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The WikiProject defines itself as being about conservatism. The POV opposite to conservative is liberal. Nowhere in the discussion is there any suggestion that the sources are intended to increase the liberal coverage or decrease the conservative coverage on pages where there supposedly would be over-emphasis on conservatism. The uniform assumption is that many Wikipedia pages carry a liberal POV and the purpose of the source list is for the WikiProject to "correct"/shift that POV towards a conservative direction. That's what "systemic bias" means in this case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse with leave to renominate. I think this is best dealt with by renominating the MfD in the not-too-distant future. Perhaps the closing admin can put a note on the top of the MfD to say there is no prejudice to this being done. As for this MfD, I just don't see the delete side of the MfD as being so overwhelmingly strong as to mandate a delete closure. Sure, WP:NPOV is Wikipedia policy. But its application in this circumstance is not a clear-cut case, requiring that the keep !votes be steamrolled. Its application in a novel and contentious case like this should only be done on the basis of fairly clear community consensus. And I'm saying that as someone who agrees with the delete !votes and who would have !voted delete. When renominating it, I think it should be publicised on WP:NPOV/N, WP:RS/N, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject, WP:CENT, and wherever else, to get a fuller cross-section of the community and a safer and more considered outcome. The MfD raises some quite fundamental questions about the proper role and behaviour of Wikiprojects, and would benefit from having more than 10 contributors. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
That's an interesting idea, especially because the MfD instructions that I followed required notification of the WikiProject, and thus may have skewed responses towards editors who would want to keep. My hope in this deletion review was that we would not just count WP:VOTES. On the other hand, I imagine that it will be difficult to keep such a high-profile new discussion free of "drama", and also to differentiate between deletion of a single page, and elimination of the project as a whole. I, for one, am not arguing for, or in favor of, the latter. (By the way, you included WP:RS/N; some of the "keep" arguments were framed as about WP:RS, but that was never an issue in the arguments for deleting.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, I certainly understand the RS point. I suggested RS/N because, as a page ostensibly about reliable sources, that noticeboard would be a logical target for a wider notification process. I think a wider discussion might be better than you fear. The recent List of banned users MfD was a pretty good example. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
I think that you are making an excellent argument, so thank you for that. @ Xaosflux: how would you feel about revising your closing statement to say that, per this DRV discussion, there is no prejudice against renominating the page? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Xaosflux:? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Consensus can change, all pages kept in deletion discussions are eligible to be re-examined for deletion in the future, so I see no need for this. If you are looking for a speedy renomination blessing, then "relist" is a possible outcome of this DRV that could be decided by the community discussing this already. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Oh well. No, I am not particularly concerned about the time frame, so there is no need for this to be speedy. And, as I said earlier, relisting, which is not the same thing as a new nomination, is unlikely to generate anything more than just additional entrenched opinions on each "side". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis – Endorse. There's pretty clear consensus here that the draft currently being proposed is not sufficiently different from the deleted article to overcome the issues raised at AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted 2 Years ago, the event has since become very notable for being the first event in a seven year deal between the UFC and FOX. Also loads of sources are now available that wasnt back when it was deleted, so the article is now notable and very sourced. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Here is a copied discussion i had with am administrator:

“

Hi, can you help me? I would like it if you could to make this page editable again so i can create the page as i have created loads of UFC event pages and this is now the only one that hasn't got one, i understand why it was deleted before and but also understand that i can be recreated as long as it isn't simply restoring an old version. The reason it was blocked from editing is because of an edit war that happened ages ago. I would really appreciate the help as i am trying to get all the UFC event pages up to top standard, kind regards. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I posted here. I'll let you two handle it from here. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I didn't close the AfD, nor was I the first to protect it. I don't have any particular opinion on what should ultimately happen, but I don't think I should unprotect the redirect at this time. The AfD closer is the right person to ask (or, failing that, WP:DRV). Either case would probably require either a new draft, or at least new sources to show the old decision is no longer applicable. Wily D 07:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you kindly. WilyD. There you have it, Lukejordan02. Now you know what to do next. Good luck. Anna F remote ( talk) 23:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Anna, unfortunately the original protector is long retired, so i am now scratching my head as i am still new to all of this stuff. According to this the consensus was to keep the page, so i don't see why it was ever deleted. I know your busy but if you could look into it i would realy appreciate it. Thanks. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 00:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Any argument about it being non notable is not true heres just a handful of big sites mentioning the event. Fox, CBS, Yahoo sports , SPortsillustrated/cnn and Chigaco Sun times. So as you can see it is far more notable than loads of pages on here. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 00:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Please take whatever action you like if you wish to do something now. Perhaps another admin or stalker can help. I am on a rubbish computer away from home with no admin tools, so I can help when I return in a week if it is not sorted out by then. Anna F remote ( talk) 01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Given it's been AfD'd and DRV'd, probably there's no reasonable route to restoration other than a new DRV that brings new sources to the table. What would probably be extremely valuable would be a source or sources that weren't proximate to the event (or someone will complain that it fails WP:NOTNEWS, which is a popular is not always applicable argument. But note that every pro baseball/football/hockey/basketball/other football/other other football/skinty/etc match meets WP:N by the letter, which is why we don't usually want articles on a sports match unless it's notable (we as a community - not sure I care)) Wily D 07:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Every administrator I know seems to be on holiday so i will wait for you next week Anna, after all theres no rush. :) Lukejordan02 ( talk) 17:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wily gives good guidance. Why not make a sandbox draft? New sources, good content. Also, you say "...is now the only one that hasn't got one...". Now, there is no policy or guideline that says we have to fill in gaps, but I think that is a good argument nonetheless. There might be some way to bend the rules on this one and just boldly make it and see who gets upset. Probably not a good idea, but maybe, just maybe there's a way. I mean, we're in the business of making decent product, and bureaucracy mustn't stop that. So, if the draft is good, let's see. :) Anna F remote ( talk) 00:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, here / here is the page to be created, it is very sourced and with it being the first event in a seven year deal between the UFC and Fox very notable. This page is much better than the previous version deleted (i also have an image that can be uploaded once it has its own page.) In regard to what you said above about see who gets upset, I think we'll be all-right because the only person that seemed to want this and every other UFC article page on wikipedia deleted has long retired User talk:Mtking (and judging by the message they left on there page they seem very hostile towards Wiki and its users.) Lukejordan02 ( talk) 01:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Lukejordan02, I remember Mtking and have nothing bad to say about him. A lot of users were very hostile toward him. I actually was on the other side of the discussion about UFC articles at one point, and drove him nuts. He was patient, cited guidelines, and others agreed with him. I eventually saw his side and agreed. That was quite some time ago. Since then, I think there has been a big movement to see all those articles created. I think. If that is the case, the fastest way would be for you to bring this to DRV with the facts you present above. I would not expect much resistance. Anna F remote ( talk) 05:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't know DRV well, but key points might be: 2 yrs ago and things have changed in the UFC article sphere. New sources. Rewritten. Last of a complete set to be created. Notable for XXXX reasons. Whatever else you can come up with. Kitchen sink it. Anna F remote ( talk) 05:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

”

[cquote added 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)]

Comment - if you want this DRV to go favourably, it would behoove you to list the new sources here, eh? Cheers, Wily D 09:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi - thanks for the comment, there is a rough copy of the page to be created here and it includes a full page worth of sources all of which have been added since the original page got deleted. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 09:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse but remove protection. This would have better gone to RFPP. All of the other events on the yearly list now have individual articles, indicating that consensus has changed about the notability of the individual events. No reason to overturn the original, accurate AFD close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:REFUND or WP:RFPP seems more appropriate. The original AFD was appropriately closed, so there's nothing for DRV to do here. DRV is for overturning out-of-process deletions, not for re-evaluating articles when new information becomes available. If the article has a raison être today it didn't have when it was deleted, fine. But DRV is not the process to handle that. -- Jayron 32 05:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply

When going to refund it states

Are you in the right place?

If your article was deleted through the articles for deletion process, then a request here is not the way to seek restoration. If you believe that the deletion was handled improperly or that circumstances have changed, please contact the administrator who deleted it. If such concerns are not addressed by the deleting administrator, you may seek redress at deletion review.

This wouldn't pass through that as this was deleted through the article for deletion process. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply

As the requester already noted, the admin who deleted it is not currently active; in that case, DRV is an appropriate alternate venue. Wily D 07:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I think a sysop should just unprotect and allow this article to be created and no further community time should be spent on this bureaucracy. Poor Luke has jumped through enough hoops. He is just trying to create needed product. Anyone? Anna F remote ( talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note that the above contribution is from an editor who participated in the initial AfD. Unscintillating ( talk) 07:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm not sure that this needs any discussion without first seeing the statement from the closing admin. Regarding the preparation above, the initial XfD is missing in the Template:DRV links template, there was no deletion at the AfD (although admin tools were later used to protect the redirect), the closing admin has not "retired years ago", and the previous DRV discussion was not a "keep" result. If there are sources to document the claim that this event "has become very notable", and/or that "loads" of sources are available, such sources need to be identified. As per [5], the article was not deleted, except for one minute. Note that the first DRV closing states "deletion endorsed", although, again, admin tools were not used until five days after the closing, and that was for page protection, not deletion.

I took a look at the first ref at the new page, and the ref, link, is a dead link.

As stated by User:Kww at the last DRV, "In terms of strength of argument, not a [supporter] has been able to overcome the arguments against the articles that are based on WP:NOT." I would add to that, nor have they tried to refute the WP:NOT arguments. There is no dispute that the topic meets WP:GNG, so there is no need to repeatedly assert a point that is not disputed. Unscintillating ( talk) 07:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Spartaz: Please review your DRV close of 24 November 2012. Unscintillating ( talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Scottywong: Not sure that you have been contacted yet that this DRV exists. Unscintillating ( talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I have fixed the ref links now so everyone works. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose unprotection - Thanks for pinging me, I was the AfD closer on this one. I honestly don't see any significant difference between the original article that was nominated for deletion and the proposed new article. The original article didn't make it through the AfD because it wasn't notable enough for its own article, judging from the available sources. The proposed new article suffers from the exact same problems: all of the sources are from MMA fan sites, with the exception of one source from Fox Sports that is more about the announcement of a long-term television contract than it is about this specific event. I don't believe that the proposed new article would survive another AfD. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse original deletion: Shouldn't be at DRV, nor have the WP:NOT based arguments been addressed. The UFC articles were not deleted because sources couldn't be found, so finding sources isn't the cure. Misrepresenting the consensus at the DRV in combination with the nonsense with claiming that the various admins involved "retired years ago" when, in fact, they are all quite active indicates that the claim here is not being made in good faith.— Kww( talk) 16:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing decent enough references in the draft. Sorry but sources win prizes and yours are barely bantamweight.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Scottywong: - If you looked further up the page you would see i listed a handful of sources for the article by none MMA sites, the only reason they arent in e article yet is I have yet to place them in it. Fox, CBS, Yahoo sports

, SPortsillustrated/cnn and Chigaco Sun times. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

So, we're somehow supposed to know to look for some other sources higher up in the article? The original article was deleted because it couldn't be shown that the subject is notable. Why would you bring this to DRV and request that the page be unprotected when you haven't even substantially changed the original content of the article? This request is a waste of time and should be closed. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Kww: - The original ( User: Mtking) administrator has long retired, so what are you talking about? Lukejordan02 ( talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The list of admins involved with this article doesn't show any involvement from User: Mtking.— Kww( talk) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at the pages history and the fact that it was Mtking who nominated it. - [6] If they would of had there way all of the UFC event pages would have been deleted. Lukejordan02 ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

As well they should have been. WP:NOT still applies to them all.— Kww( talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

And, the more I look at Lukejordan02's edits, the more obvious it is that JonnyBonesJones is back once again. Blocked.— Kww( talk) 00:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm striking my comments above. I am not on a computer that makes it easy to check into things, and have largely made my decisions in good faith based on what Luke has said. I was under the impression that there had been a broad new consensus to make all these redirects into articles, and that this one was the last to be done. I no longer think this is so. I will leave it to others to handle this. Sorry to be a bother. Anna F remote ( talk) 08:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Clear endorse both AFD and last DRV close - disclosure, I closed the last DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.