The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve Mixed Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like an advertisement and its sources are either not third-party (Gracie magazine, official website, a search engine result) or do not assert notability (the facility is only mentioned once in each of the Reuters links). Most of the fighters therein do not have their own articles, and existing ones are poorly sourced. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonbulldog here. This is my first article on Wikipedia. Please accept my sincere apologies as I am a newbie. The article is factually correct, but I am a newbie and had to edit it many times to get it right. To your points

1) Gracie Magazine does not belong to Renzo Gracie and has nothing to do with Evolve Mixed Martial Arts. Gracie Magazine is an independent 3rd party magazine for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Mixed Martial Arts news. See this link for the owners of Gracie Magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACIE_Magazine

2) Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a new sport in Asia. Reuters wrote an article titled Asia set for MMA revolution and quoted Evolve Mixed Martial Arts in there since it is the leader in Asia. This article was syndicated, picked up, and published by New York Times, Guardian UK, ABC News, Straitstimes, China Post, Taipei Times, Oman Tribune, Kyiv Post, and other major publications in Asia. It was a feature article on Reuters front page when it first ran: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE5BD0CT20091221. here it is on ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=9388069. here it is on: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/23/sports/sports-us-mma.html. Evolve was featured by CNN of a list of 50 reasons why Singapore is the greatest city http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/none/worlds-greatest-city-50-reasons-why-singapore-no-1-399897 Evolve is also noted in Men's Health magazine in a blog by a reporter - here it is. http://www.menshealth.com.sg/blog/gavintan/gavin-gets-garang-day-01

Morever, independent industry news sources have documented Evolve Mixed Martial Arts as ground breaking in the world of MMA. Here are some articles:

http://www.mmaconvert.com/2009/12/28/the-five-star-mma-gym-you-wont-find-on-this-continent/

http://middleeasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1247:remember-that-6000000000-mma-gym-we-told-you-about-well-here-are-pictures&catid=34:organizations

http://www.bjj-asia.com/2009/10/interview-w-leandro-brodinho-issa.html

http://www.sg-pro.com/2009/10/20/sg-pro-interviews-ufc-fighter-and-evolve-fight-team-member-rafael-dos-anjos/

http://www.sg-pro.com/2009/07/07/sg-pro-interviews-chatri-sityodtong/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.108 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.matratz.com/?p=1349

3) The article is factually correct. As a newbie, I might have written incorrectly (ie. not up to Wikipedia standards), but all facts are 100% correct and truthful.

4) There are many more articles in print media form as well about Evolve Mixed Martial Arts.

5) I am a newbie on Wikipedia, but am a walking encylopedia when it comes to martial arts.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does little to establish that Evolve MMA is a notable MMA school or MMA organization. Google search suggests that the only notable thing is that the Singapore site was expensively built and is very lavish. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: reads like a promotion, hardly notable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Looking at the WPMA guidelines on notability for schools and organisations, the inclination would be for deletion. The article does need to establish notability, and does need improvement. Having done a quick search for sources, I believe that there might be enough information to allow for merging the article with another, or perhaps even keeping it. I bear in mind, too, that we should try not to be hostile to newcomers (which the primary contributor claims, and appears, to be). Janggeom (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that be supportive of newcomers by firmly but kindly explaining notability and pointing them to unwritten articles that have scads of appropriate source material. --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not (yet) notable, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reuters mention is in passing and Graciemag mention is press release regurg. For goodness sake, it is brand new. Write the article in ten years, if it becomes notable. --Bejnar (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.