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. per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not impressed when the MMA fanboys come out to claim that the world cares but out of the keep arguments, only Hutcher makes a decent argument. The delete argument is that this event has received only routine coverage that any future event would receive: date, time, location, and possible match ups. The article and the sources would seem to support that argument. I see nothing of note. As far as cites go, the MMAJunkie is owned by USAToday and so we're really only talking a single reliable source: USA Today. Being the 2nd largest MMA org on earth does not mean this event will have lasting effects. Being announced on the official website of the org does not mean this still isnt a Crystal ball and therefore MtKing's argument is not "hereby" irrelevent (really, 'hereby'?). No prejudice against recreation when (and if) the event happens and receives significant coverage. v/r - TP 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce 41 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Contested PROD : Unsourced article on an event without a firm date, no indication that it will have anything other than the routine coverage every sporting event gets; fails WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT Mtking ^(edits) 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This a future event. The article has no sources and gives no reason why this event is/will be notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing to show this article meets the notability criteria at [{WP:EVENT]]. The only source is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you griefers need to be improving articles on Wikipedia instead of snipping at those of us who are. Delete points made above are groundless:

1. "Unsourced", 2 cites - 1 from the biggest MMA site and one from the biggest national paper
2. "without a firm date", firm as per the cites you did not bother to read
3. WP:EVENT? Read your own cite.
   1. Lasting effects? It's the 2nd largest MMA org on earth
   2. Geographical scope? It's an international org with international professionals. This test is meant to eliminate your county fair from having an article
4. Wikipedia:Future event, planned events commonly have articles

I'm bored with arguing the obvious. --Hutcher (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack aside, WP:NOT lays out WP policy on covering events, they need to demonstrate enduring notability, zero indication this event will have any. Mtking ^(edits) 01:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Idem. (Justinsane15 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's generally a bad idea to create articles on events that haven't happened yet. However, if the event goes off as the article claims, then I think an event by a top tier organization with 3 championship fights should be notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to point this out but if the event goes off as the article claims and should be notable are speculation and policy says we don't base articles on speculation. Mtking ^(edits) 02:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and that's why I hate articles created before the fact. Also, I meant "would be notable" (at least in my opinion) instead of "should be notable." I was trying to give the reasoning for my vote. The closing admin can ignore my comment if he/she believes that's the correct thing to do. Certainly if the event happens without the championship fights then I'd vote to delete the article. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm undecided in terms of keep vs delete. I will note that this article lacks "well-sourced prose" as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT; in fact, half of the prose of the article is about a fight may or may not happen at this event. If the article had more prose and/or cited sources not affiliated to MMA (NOTE: the USA Today article is from MMAJunkie.com) then I might lean towards keep. Otherwise, delete. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails routine or something like that. Portillo (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user --TreyGeek (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no need to delete future MMA events as WP:CRYSTALBALL violations due to the fact that the information for these events often flows in gradually. We know when and where the fights will take place for sure, but all the details are not suddenly set in stone on X date. The purpose of having the page established is so that when details become confirmed, they can be added and sourced appropriately without needing to recreate the article over and over. Zeekfox (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This event does NOT fail WP:CRYSTALBALL as it has been announced on the strikeforce.com website. Also it does NOT fail WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:EVENT, because it is not only determining a champion in a top league, it's determining 2 champions in a top league. Therefore, MtKing's claims are hereby irrelevant, and this article should be kept. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:CRYSTAL. If this event occurs and if the predicted fights go off and if multiple independent reliable sources cover it, then WP might have an article about it. But as is, delete. MMAJunkie and strikeforce.com may be in the business of promoting every upcoming event, but by policy, Wikipedia is not. User:TreyGeek correctly points out the USA Today link self-identifies as a reprint from the same author and same date at MMAJ. (IMHO, this calls USA Today's reliability and independence as a sports source in question.) I'd have no objection to userfication until RS are found and applied. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2012 (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.