User talk:Gamezero05/UFC 148 sandbox

Also on the card is a long-awaited rubber match between Tito Ortiz and Forrest Griffin. Each fighter has defeated the other in their two prior meetings with Ortiz winning the first bout at UFC 59 and Griffin winning the rematch at UFC 106. Both of the fights resulted in a split decision. Gamezero05 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I put XXXX's and some of the numbers are probably wrong (2:23 in the 5th round, etc.). I just wrote it all out without checking the numbers yet.

But this was just to give you a rough idea and show you that there is more than enough information for a stand-alone article.

I didn't even touch on the fact that Sonnen was busted for steroids after the first fight and the fiasco that followed. I didn't even touch on the fact that Sonnen does not currently have a therapeutic use exemption for the use of testosterone in the state of Nevada... the state where he was caught using steroids and suspended and the state that UFC 148 is taking place in. He's also got a hearing coming up soon on that very issue. Gamezero05 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the format

I stripped the content and moved the discussion here so as to make it easier to read. If you want to work on this in your sandbox we can move it there. I offered my sandbox because I thought you were just an IP and had aversion to registering at WP. I'm willing to help and evaluate the article. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just edit it here since I'm already here. Gamezero05 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some suggestions I have in regards to the sandboxed article:

The citation templates ({{cite journal}}) should use as much information as is available including the author's first and last name and accessdate.
There are no non-MMA sources cited. Has USA Today, ESPN or other sites not covered the event at all yet?
UFC 148 was never scheduled to take place in Brazil, that was/is UFC 147. The Sonnen/Silva fight was originally scheduled to be the main event of an arena fight at UFC 147 in Brazil. But because of the UN summit, the Sonnen/Silva fight has been moved to Las Vegas and UFC 147 has been moved to a smaller venue in a different city in Brazil. The cited reference for that paragraph supports that it was the Sonnen/Silva bout that was moved from Brazil, not the event itself.
Improve the lead to explain why the event is notable and/or the significant bouts of the event (Middleweight Championship and Interim Bantamweight Championships are scheduled for the event).
During the TUF broadcast tonight, Faber's opponent was announced (Renan Barão). I'm sure there will be a flurry of sources for it in moments which I'm sure can be added.
In the paragraph discussing the original Bantamweight Championship match consider the verbiage "Faber was scheduled to fight" versus "Faber was expected to fight".
The "paragraph" on Ortiz/Griffin seems weak. I'd think there would be much more to write about their past matches as it leads up to this match. But I haven't looked into it to see.
{{flagicon}} in the infobox? Is this allowed per MOS?
Be aware that the wikilink(s) of [[Las Vegas]] are usually changed to [[Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas]]. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but it frequently happens.

That's what I see at first reading. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to see any enduring notability demonstrate, therefore it still fails WP:NOT. Mt king ^(edits) 03:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking, if this event is not notable, then what UFC event is? Plus, there are other events like UFC 146 and UFC 147 which have their own separate articles. Do you even follow MMA and the UFC? Gamezero05 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop right there. That is questioning another editor's good faith. I refuse to be an enabler for incivility so you get a singular warning. Next incivil comment will be vaporized. Hasteur (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Mtking, you're pushing for a higher standard above GNG. Consider that 2 "belt fights" is probably enough to bump the proposed article over the line. Hasteur (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Overlinking Batman. We don't need the titles linked twice, the names of the fighters linked multiple times, etc.

We also don't need links on the article back to itself.

Do we really need to link the acronym MMA?

"Also on the card is a long-awaited rubber match between Tito Ortiz and Forrest Griffin." Can we get a source on this statement?

I also strongly suggest that prior to being moved into article space, at least 1 non-mma centric citation needs to be added. Couldn't a news article from the Las Vegas area demonstate the outside notability of the article? Hasteur (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not questioning his good faith. I was honestly asking if he follows the sport because he doesn't think this event is notable. I was asking if he doesn't find this event notable, then what UFC events are considered so? Gamezero05 (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The General notability guideline is not the issue, this event will garner coverage,that coverage will the sort of routine coverage that all sports get, what this artical draft lacks howver is the indication that it will get the sort of coverage that demonstrates the enduring notability refereed to in What Wikipedia is not Policy and absent that it should not be included in the Encyclopaedia. This has been deleted once following a AfD, nothing has changed in that week. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Explain it again in plain English. Gamezero05 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every sports event will pass the General notability guideline as it will receive coverage in the sports and mainstream press as they are newsworthy. However this does not mean the sports event is of Encyclopaedic note. WP has a policy called What Wikipedia is not, in that (under the section called Wikipedia is not a newspaper) it details that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Wikipedia:Notability (events) goes on to explain how events need to demonstrate that enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 07:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are any UFC events covered at all? Why are any sports events covered? It's all just routine. The Super Bowl happens every single year. That is routine, is it not? Pretty much every single movie made has it's own page. Movies are pretty routine, right? Unless the movie has some kind of substantial cultural impact, why is it covered? I mean, I'd be willing to bet 90% of things on Wikipedia can be considered "routine". Gamezero05 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that when the term "routine" is used in this context it doesn't mean frequency. It means the level of coverage. If for an event, all that is talked about is "who is going to fight" and "who won/lost", that would be routine coverage. Non-routine coverage could include "why are they fighting", "what history do they have", "how they won/lost", "why they won/lost", "ramifications of winning/losing", etc. As for determining if a subject has "enduring notability", the Mr. Fusion in my DeLorean is broken, so I personally can't tell what will be notable tomorrow let alone five years from now. Seriously, I think five people will have five different answers as to what is considered to be "enduring notability". Gamerzero05, I'd suggest focusing on the content of the article and make it the best you can and debating the philosophical stuff later. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again... I'll bring up the Super Bowl. Isn't the Super Bowl routine? Sure, it gets more coverage compared to the rest of the season, but compared to other Super Bowls, it doesn't. It is a routine event that happens every year. Why do Super Bowls get their own pages? 76.1.77.85 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Bowl gets non-routine coverage compared to the average football game. Therefore, it is not routine in regards to coverage and possible sourcing. A quick examination of Super Bowl XLIII (the first one on the list when I searched for "Super Bowl") shows more content than simply who won the game (which would be routine coverage), and that content is well-sourced. That said, this talk page should be discussions on how to improve the sandboxed article on UFC 148. So, I'll no longer make off-topic comments here (if someone wishes to pursue this line of debate, find another venue for it if you want my participation). --TreyGeek (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, stop trying to change the subject. It is absolutely relevant. The Super Bowl happens every single year. It doesn't get more media coverage than any past Super Bowls. It gets routine coverage compared to other Super Bowls. It has no real lasting effects. Why is that different than a UFC Championship? 76.1.77.85 (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think anything is going to satisfy Mtkings criteria for notability. The whole situation is an exercise in futility. I suggest we move forward without him. Portillo (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well

It has come to my attention that somebody has multiple accounts. Mtking, beeblebrox, scottywong, hasteur, Mdtemp, Papaursa, snottywong, and AStudent0 are all the same person. You have been going around and trying to delete MMA articles with all of these multiple accounts. An admin taking part in sock puppetry and meat puppetry? Are you going to deny or fess up? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]