Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

WSOF to top tier?

I think they are the 3rd biggest fight promotion, look at the talent pool and fighters they have. Should we move them to top tier? LiberatorLX (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Do they meet the criteria that was used to assign the tiers? Do they have at least 3 fighters currently ranked in the world top 10? The Sherdog rankings are the standard and a fighter's last fight is considered his organization. If so, then I'd support their listing as top tier, otherwise they're not top tier. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

World Series of Fighting to Top Tier

They have multiple top 10 fighters across several weight divisions including the likes of Jake Shields, Yushin Okami, Marlon Moraes. Think its time to bump them up as soon as possible guys. 109.153.151.104 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if no one seems to want to discuss it then I may as well bump them up for now until people are willing to debate on it.31.55.100.100 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There was a relatively recent discussion in Archive8 of this talk page about its promotion to Second Tier but no further. I feel that Archived discussion got it right. To be fair your post got no responses after 2 weeks so I can't fault the action but I still think it should be reverted. I put a note on the MMA project page which tends to be monitored better than this one. Let's see what the response is like before any further action.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe that WSOF almost qualifies as top tier. Okami and Moraes are both top 10 ranked fighters. However, Shields has not yet fought for the WSOF and we've always considered a fighter's last fight as the designator of what organization he/she is attached to. If WSOF is moved to top tier than it's important to remember that its top tier status is not retroactive (see earlier discussions) and that fights before that date will not confer notability. I also believe that the IP's move was unilateral and cannot be considered consensus. Therefore, I have reverted the last change. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So would you say once that I find that another top 10 fighter has already fought for the WSoF then we can keep them as Top Tier? I did see that last archive topic on this conversation, but despite getting virtually no replies I did find that if there are at least three top ten fighters in a promotion it counts, so I'm putting my two-cents in and offering to find another fighter to match this criteria, however would it count if one of those top ten fighters were to be a strawweight women fighter? I know Jessica Aguilar is considered the no.1 female strawweight in the world so if that counts then it makes 3 for 3 if counting Okami and Moraes to that?109.144.181.38 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I found out that Ashlee Evans-Smith is a top tier fighter that is currently fighting for the WSoF according to Unified Women's Mixed Martial Arts Rankings, making it 2/3 on the women's side of it also. Considering that also 2/3 of the top 10 ranked male fighters signed for them have had fights for them, with the 3rd got a contract to fight and just awaiting an opponent and event to compete on, should we at least consider the option of a temporary placement for WSoF to top tier for say 3 months from now and if Jake Shields hasn't fought or been scheduled to fight for them within that time frame then we shall keep them at second tier until they do get to be top tier standard?109.144.181.38 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't even see Ashlee Evans-Smith in the rankings. I agree the WSOF is close, but men's and women's top tier organizations are determined independently of each other. You can't combine rankings. The WSOF currently does not meet the criteria for being top tier for either men or women.Mdtemp (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No need for deciding here when to re-check. Nothing wrong with any editor revisiting the rankings. Still at least 3 months is probably right - soon than that would be premature.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So we are at an agreement with that? we can temporarily place the WSoF as a top tier promotion for the next 3 months until we know for sure whether Jake Shields gets a fight for them or has a fight scheduled for them within that timeframe? If we start this on this day then we know that the deadline is by 4th October 2014. I will put them on the top tier section now then with the deadline next to it so there will be no confusion.31.55.69.214 (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No that is not what was meant. WSoF should remain in second tier until it clearly deserves promotion. I just said that looking again after 3 months is not out of the question.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you were agreeing with me from what I said, as I did clearly ask if we could bump them up for a three month probation period when I said should we at least consider the option of a temporary placement for WSoF to top tier for say 3 months from now and if Jake Shields hasn't fought or been scheduled to fight for them within that time frame then we shall keep them at second tier until they do get to be top tier standard?, and your last comment did imply an agreeing view of it Still at least 3 months is probably right - soon than that would be premature. So you can see how the confusion was made, but that being said I strongly believe that we should go with my idea for now, having the require minimum of 3 top 10 ranked male fighters on their roster, with 2/3 of them already having fought for them and the third just awaiting an opponent and event to compete on can we really just denounce them to a lower stage that they already surpassed by the consensus of the wider community beyond Wikipedia?31.55.69.214 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
We don't change tiers on a temporary basis, only if there's been a significant change. Meeting 2/3 of the criteria isn't sufficient in the same way that a fighter having 2 of the 3 required top tier fights is not enough to show notability. Reviewing this in 3 months seems reasonable to me. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Xtreme Combat to Second Tier

Can we get PXC added to Second Tier? There have already been multiple PXC fighters that have gone on to fight in UFC such as Russell Doane, Jon Delos Reyes, Dustin Kimura, Michinori Tanaka, Jon Tuck, Lim Hyun-Gyu and Roldan Sangcha-an — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.132.66 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this either way, but I would point out that PXC just survived a contested AfD discussion (which was mistakenly closed by a non-admin as non-controversial). If it's notability is questionable, I'm not sure it's ready for second tier status yet. Papaursa (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The article still remains unreferenced even with all the debate how it really is notable. I will probably re-submit it to AfD soon - I do not see its notability much less second tier status.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, If you search up PXC in google, you can find multiple sources of Pacific Xtreme Combat events being covered on several MMA websites such as BloodyElbow, MMAMania and TheFightNation. Why would this not be notable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.3.76 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet it still remains completely unreferenced.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not the most Wiki Edit savvy but here http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/6/29/5854278/pxc-44-results-video-zebaztian-kadestam-wins-pxc-welterweight-title http://www.mmamania.com/2014/7/2/5863676/newly-crowned-pxc-champion-zebaztian-kadestam-hoping-for-ufc-call-mma http://www.thefightnation.com/zebaztian-kadestam-to-face-josh-calvo-for-the-pxc-welterweight-title-on-june-27/ from their most recent event

The article has no references - they are no real use here or in the previous AfD debate. If you care about the subject fix the problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

World Series of Fighting Top Tier Status

Just to update you all Jake Shields will be competing for the promotion for the first time on October 11, which will automatically make the promotion top tier as they also have Yushin Okami and Marlon Moraes already compete for them, and in turn will make it 3 for 3 for top 10 fighters competing for the promotion. If anyone else feels like pushing them up for top tier before the date above please share your thoughts, otherwise once this event happens WSoF are officially top tier. 81.156.112.73 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to push for top tier status but there is nothing that would make them officially top tier except for consensus here. Once those conditions above are met bring it to discussion - most likely the result will be positive but there is nothing automatic. My biggest concern would be how borderline the case is - just crossing a line is no good if the chance is they cross it right back again. All three of the fighters mentioned are ranked number 9 and it is distinctly possible that any one of them could be ranked lower soon. Jake himself has only won three of the last seven fights and in fact was let go by the UFC. Yushin was three for the last six with the UFC before signing with the WSoF. The date after which they are to be considered top tier will also be decided - it can be back dated so I don't see the need to rush.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am just going along with what other users have said on this in the not so distant past, as some have said that only once they have 3 top ten fighters then they can become considered top tier so that is what I am striving for, if you feel there needs to be a more open conversation on this, fine but it even says on the project page that is the minimum requirement for top tier status so I am just ensuring the promotion matches it place on wiki. 81.156.112.73 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The key word is minimum - that means at least that to be considered. Patience please.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Events

It bothers me that there are numbered UFC events without an article. The UFC is a major worldwide promotion, similar to Formula One racing, with a comparable number of major events (12 vs 20). I believe that every F1 race has its own article. IMHO, any event with a championship, top contender, or significant grudge bout deserves its own article. Or should the number of F1 articles be pruned?

A bit unrelated is that many articles do not contain a brief description of the matches, only a listing of results. This could be easily gleaned from sources such as Sherdog, and paraphrased. Description of fights is more relevant in the event articles than the fighter articles, as the fight happened to both fighters, and this would reduce redundancy. 173.19.233.252 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read through some of the previous discussions on this page in the 7th archive. Ravensfire (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vale Tudo

Vale Tudo Japan isn't listed as a top or secondary organization. Where should it be included for MMA Tier? CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability to extend to male's 115lbs fighters?

Whilst the only major promotion to hold fights this weight class is Shooto, the 115lbs (Strawweight) division is acknowledged by the Fight Matrix's ranking system, and the UFC has contemplated adding this weight class to their roster, so would this be something we can look into? 81.129.198.164 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Shooto is not currently a top tier MMA organization, I would suggest holding off on this discussion until at least one top tier organization is using this weight class. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Shooto is a top tier promotion according to the tier system on the main page. It's Japanese version is, and is the version that holds fights in the 115lbs division that had many of the top ranking fighters in the division. GaleFamily20 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually Shooto Japan was only top tier up to 2011 not currently.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
How does a MMA promotion loses its top tier status? Surely once they reach the top they can't lose it, its like saying PRIDE FC or Strikeforce cannot be considered top tier anymore because they are out of business, which as we know is protected under Defunct section. Shooto is still strongly acknowledged within the MMA community as a higher tier promotion, and when you do your research you'd find that Shooto had the majority of the top 10 125lbs fighters before the UFC added in the division, and even then they didn't sign many - if any of the 125lbs fighters Shooto had, and instead the rankings just made the ones the UFC did sign pushed straight up to the top 10. GaleFamily20 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The tier reflects the quality of fighters competing at the moment and that is based on rankings by Sherdog and others. It is entirely possible that a promotion once attracted some serious names but no longer just as the opposite is true. I don't think you would see a lot of changes but there are clear examples of what was once a top tier promotion no longer delivering the goods.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability to extend to male's 115lbs fighters?

Whilst the only major promotion to hold fights this weight class is Shooto, the 115lbs (Strawweight) division is acknowledged by the Fight Matrix's ranking system, and the UFC has contemplated adding this weight class to their roster, so would this be something we can look into? 81.129.198.164 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Shooto is not currently a top tier MMA organization, I would suggest holding off on this discussion until at least one top tier organization is using this weight class. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Shooto is a top tier promotion according to the tier system on the main page. It's Japanese version is, and is the version that holds fights in the 115lbs division that had many of the top ranking fighters in the division. GaleFamily20 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually Shooto Japan was only top tier up to 2011 not currently.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
How does a MMA promotion loses its top tier status? Surely once they reach the top they can't lose it, its like saying PRIDE FC or Strikeforce cannot be considered top tier anymore because they are out of business, which as we know is protected under Defunct section. Shooto is still strongly acknowledged within the MMA community as a higher tier promotion, and when you do your research you'd find that Shooto had the majority of the top 10 125lbs fighters before the UFC added in the division, and even then they didn't sign many - if any of the 125lbs fighters Shooto had, and instead the rankings just made the ones the UFC did sign pushed straight up to the top 10. GaleFamily20 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The tier reflects the quality of fighters competing at the moment and that is based on rankings by Sherdog and others. It is entirely possible that a promotion once attracted some serious names but no longer just as the opposite is true. I don't think you would see a lot of changes but there are clear examples of what was once a top tier promotion no longer delivering the goods.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Notability Issues

It's safe to say that this page has now become very dated. Multiple problems exist within MMA:NOT. This needs a major clean up.

Problems:

ONE FC and WSOF are undervalued. ONE FC is the most dominant promotion in Asia and has most of the top Asian MMA fighters. WSOF has expanded, has wide coverage via NBC, and has a number of top fighters (Fitch, Shields, Phalares, Moraes, Okami, Aguilar, Branch, Gaethje), and a number of notable names (several Gracies, Matt Hamill, Thiago Silva, Melvin Guillard, Spong, Volkman, Newell, etc.). There is no way WSOF is on the same level of notability as MFC, for example, yet that's where they are listed. MMA:NOT probably needs a 3-tier system. That said, there's a good chance WSOF snuck into the top tier once or twice over the past year, year and a half as rankings are fluid. The next issue becomes which rankings to use (USA Today, Fight Matrix, Sherdog) as there are more and more rankings systems out there.

Titan FC is missing entirely from tier2 yet is essentially a feeder/retirement promotion for the UFC (though they don't like being painted that way). RFA is missing as well. These are two significant smaller MMA promotions in the U.S.

SFL (Super Fight League) is also missing, and should probably sit in the tier2 category.

Women's MMA criteria is a nightmare. According to MMA:NOT the only way for a female bantamweight to be notable is to have fought in the UFC or Invicta a minimum of three times (or to have fought for the title in one of those) since they're the only two top tier promotions that have a female bantamweight division, or to have been "subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries" - which should be at the international level.

This is horribly exclusive since Invicta does not operate outside the U.S., and the UFC only rarely visits Asia and Europe. Rin Nakai, who fought Miesha Tate in her UFC debut, had extensive media coverage, was a champion in both Pancrase and Valkryie (also missing from the tier2 list), yet has had her page repeatedly deleted as being "not notable." Multiple titles and the fact she's the first Japanese female fighter in the UFC should make her notable.

Meanwhile Paige VanZant, with the same number of fights in the UFC, far less experience, and no championships in a tier2 promotion, is deemed notable. I'm not arguing she's not notable, but the guidelines here need work.

In essence the current MMA:NOT has created a bias against fighters outside of North America that is not in line with MMA as a global sport, and has made being a notable female outside North America next to impossible. It also places far too much emphasis on the top tier.

Suggestion: Add a third tier and elevate ONE FC, WSOF, Pancrase, KSW, M-1, to tier2, drop other promotions to third tier. Care should be taken to look at the top promotions throughout the world. Suggestion: Tier2 title holders past and present should qualify as notable, at least in the case of women's MMA, and probably in the case of men's MMA. Suggestion: Five or more fights in a tier2 promotion should then give fighters notability the same way 3 fights in tier1 should. Tier3 fights should not necessarily count towards notability but could be used to support a notability claim (example, fighter has had a large amount of international media coverage, and has a large number of fights at tier3, could still be considered notable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.1.232 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is more tiers more argument. Another idea is to expand the option we have for Jewels which is top tier but notable only for title bouts and tournament winners. Not really that different from the above suggestion but less radical. In either case we would have to come up with criteria. I do think the US bias is not that strong - there is certainly a wide international representation in the UFC for instance.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to strongly support a third tier as suggested by the unsigned poster above, and expand notability claims. To me, More Flexibility = Less Argument. The current arguments are coming from fighters a lot of people consider notable being deleted, so expanding the net a bit to cover a few outliers isn't the worst idea (MMAJunkie, a subsidiary of USA Today, even noted Justin Gaethje's lack of a Wikipedia page in an article about him recently). The fact is, the current MMA landscape is no longer reflected by the notability guidelines, and putting the World Series of Fighting in the same tier as Shark Fights is downright silly. As such, there are some pretty notable fighters who don't meet current criteria who are getting their pages deleted on technicalities, and the world of MMA, like a lot of things on this earth, has more shades of gray than the current guidelines allow for. I don't see the problem in tweaking the guidelines to account for this.
Therefore, here is my Suggestion: Active Tier 2 promotions would be WSoF, OneFC, KSW, M-1, and Vale Tudo Japan (they run shows very infrequently but tend to use high-level talent), with the rest dropping to Tier 3. Pancrase is fine as a former Tier 2 promotion through around 2005 or so, now Tier 3. Deep would be an active Tier 2 for women only (they absorbed Jewels). I would extend the criteria thus that Champions of a Tier 2 promotion, or fighters with at least six fights in a Tier 2 promotion, would qualify for notability. This would cover a few outliers like Justin Gaethje, Marlon Moraes, and Karolina Kowalkiewicz, and maybe we could have fewer clashes. Beansy (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, if the people wanting to cull the fat from MMA pages on Wikipedia want to make a trade-off, honestly Bellator is a lot closer to the proposed revised second-tier than it is to the other top tier organizations. Dropping the male fighters to second tier, or at least second tier prior to their Spike TV deal in 2013, might cut down on fighters who manage to qualify based on having a few untelevised Bellator prelim fights but who aren't actually notable by practical standards. Beansy (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I would definitely support most of that. Maybe 5 fights instead of 6 for tier2 plus champions. Either way. I'd also suggest keeping Pancrase at least tier2 for women's MMA. tier3 for mens. It should be noted that the issue with many smaller, regional promotions is that they have just about anyone fighting for them. Occasionally a big name with a largely unknown undercard. WSOF, ONE FC, and even Pancrase however seem to be going for long-term deals with a lot of talent. The Bellator idea (men's division being tier2 prior to 2013) could be doable also. - unsigned

I agree this notability issue needs to be sorted because I believe EFC Africa is notable so even when an organisation has demonstrated it has high television ratings from independent sources and broadcast on major international networks it's still not deemed worthy yet BRACE, Desert Force Championship are notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that BRACE is notable--it's that nobody has tested its notability at AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping an article. As for the notability discussion, I would say it doesn't matter how many fights you have if you're not fighting the top fighters. The organizations that are considered top tier got there because they had at least three top 10 fighters. Fighters aren't competing at the highest level (a requirement of WP:ATHLETE) if they're not fighting against the top competitors. An analogous argument can be made for MMA organizations that they're not top tier if they're not attracting the top talent. Papaursa (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:ATHLETE - its Mixed Martial Arts section is barebones and not a great point of reference. WP:ATHLETE's boxing section, however, could be used as one. Note that MMA does not have a league, it has promotions. How those promotions are viewed is dependent on many factors: rankings (which differ from source to source), TV deals, live attendance, etc. Which fighter is more notable, the one ranked by a website in North America, or one that played to a huge audience of Asian TV? Boxing allows for notability if you have fought for a title in a number of lower-tier sanctioning bodies. MMA:NOT could adopt a similar system that would clear up much of this issue. Allowing second title holders/challengers notability seems like a logical decision and eliminates half the debate. Though it still doesn't speak to the fact that the argument that fighters outside the top tier "aren't competing at the highest level" is simply not true, because of how wide-spread the sport is and the number of promotions. We also need to factor in non-athletic considerations like mainstream press coverage/MMA media coverage for certain fighters (Rin Nakai, super heavyweight Chris Barnett, whose page is at risk of deletion despite the fact that he's the best known super heavyweight active at the moment, though his page does need some work). In short, however, a fighter with 3 fights on the UFC Fight Pass prelims, who loses all three and washes out, still qualifies for a wikipedia page under current MMA:NOT, while a guy could potentially become a ONE FC champion, Pancrase Champion, Shoot Champion etc. and face deletion.
What level a fighter is at in a promotion is just as important as being in the promotion in the first place.
Conversely, if someone _is_ a top talent by objective measures, should they not be considered notable anyway regardless of whether they've fought for a UFC organization? Marlon Moraes is a top ten bantamweight on nearly every major MMA ranking site, but has never fought for a "top tier" organization so under conventional rules should not have a page. Justin Gaethje would be an aggregate Top 20 fighter using the six most prominent ranking sites, and had a recent profile piece on (USA Today affiliate) MMAJunkie.com describing him as "the most famous MMA fighter without a Wikipedia page." Obviously, the Worlds Series of Fighting is not the UFC, but considering they have a national television deal, get regular coverage from the major MMA press outlets, and have held events on NBC, I would hold it self-evident that there should be a separate tier that separates a handful of promotions like the WSoF above the bulk of current Tier-2 organizations like Shark Fights.
Now, looking at the rankings from the most major ranking sites for the top 10-20 fighters (depending on the number of available rankings) across the eight competitive men's divisions and the two highest profile women's divisions, and also taking the the top 5 (active) fighters in the three less-developed competitive women's divisions, the following emerges: the UFC clearly has the lion's share here, with the following other promotions also represented: Bellator, Invicta, World Series of Fighting, OneFC, KSW, M-1, and Shooto, and with the exception of a single flyweight out of DEEP ranked on Sherdog and Tapology, and a single female strawweight ranked only on Tapology, that is every promotion represented across all the major ranking sites (Sherdog, ESPN, FightMatrix, MMAJunkie, Tapology, and MMARocks). Giving some weight to accomplishments in those five promotions (or at least the first three) I believe to be an entirely fair compromise and a concession to the realities of where MMA is at in 2015.
My suggestion is that notability can be established by three fights total in either a Tier-1 promotion, or in a title fight (either defending or challenging) or otherwise headlining fight in a the revised Tier-2 set of promotions. This would merely preserve a low double-digit number of pages, but would take quite a bit of the venom from arguments here over a few controversial omissions. Beansy (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I would second beansy's suggestion as it seems the best option out there at this point. This issue popped up again this weekend as KSW heavyweight champion Karol Bedorf lacks a wiki (though he has a pl.wiki entry) while the man he defended the title against at KSW 31, Peter Graham, does. Not knocking Graham but Bedorf is the more notable fighter at this point (at least in MMA - Graham still has kickboxing as well). For second tier add some of the promotions suggested above: Titan FC, RFA, Legacy FC, EFC etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.225.247 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposal Modify MMA:NOT guidelines to something like

Criteria supporting notability

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations

Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA or second tier organization

Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.225.247 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What is considered a top-tier organization?

I hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but may I ask what makes an MMA organization top-tier? Anytime you hear someone talking about MMA, it's either UFC, Bellator MMA, or WSOF. Why is it that WSOF is not considered top-tier? I don't see any reason why it is not. If it's the number of events (over 20), WSOF dwarfs Invicta (less than 16). The level of talent is right up there with Bellator MMA. Many former fighters from the UFC and Bellator MMA compete in WSOF today. A WSOF fighter, Nick Newell, has an article not because he's had several fights including a title shot, but because he's had articles written about him because of his disability. Totally ridiculous in my opinion. WSOF along with UFC and Bellator MMA are the organizations that are televised on major TV channels. Ex. Spike TV (Bellator), Fox Sports 1 (UFC), and NBCSN (WSOF). I strongly believe that there needs to be some reconsideration as to whether or not WSOF should be considered a top-tier organization. If not, please explain to me why. Thanks. WWE Batman131 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The last time this was discussed was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 9. I think the explanations and issues are well outlined. It is based on current fighter rankings (not on the way up or down) and not on number of events. I think WSOF was close a number of times, might have even been there for short periods but not consistently.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Rankings show that at least 3 fighters from the WSOF are in the top 10. Ex. Jake Shields, David Branch, and Marlon Moraes. Two of them are champions and one of them is the Welterweight number 1 contender. What is currently restricting the WSOF from becoming an organization that has top-tier status? WWE Batman131 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at the Sherdog rankings for April 19th and I see both Shields and Moraes at 8 and Branch not in the top 10 (Middleweight contender). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any hold-up will have to do with a transient nature and a date from when will have to be decided. The last time this went around is one of the fighters was at 10th place and expected to drop which they did. UFC and Bellator have consistently had at least 3 top 10 fighters - WSOF has been close a few time but that's it. I think WSOF is the best second tier organization out there but that's only my opinion and if they did have the numbers (consistently) I would have no issues with promotion.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The prerequisites have been met. Jake Shields, Rousimar Palhares, and Marlon Moraes are in the rankings. WWE Batman131 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PRehse has it right--having the numbers consistently. I think the condition can't just be met for a fleeting moment. One problem I see with the WSOF is that both Shields and Palhares are barely in the top 10 and are scheduled to fight each other in their next bout, meaning that one is likely to drop out of the top 10. Notability is not temporary--we don't move organizations in and out of the top tier based on short term results. A truly top tier organization should stay that way for awhile. Papaursa (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How long is awhile? WWE Batman131 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say one year. If they can keep at least 3 fighters in the top 10 for a full year, I'd say they belong in the top tier. That means they can't drop down to 2 ranked fighters and go back up to 3. They must maintain a minimum of 3 continuously for a year. That's my opinion. I do think they're currently the best of the second tier organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Listen, all male fighters in Sherdog's rankings are from either UFC, Bellator, or WSOF. There are no ranked fighters from any other organization in any Sherdog top 10. Why is that not enough? WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Because we have an objective criteria that was arrived at through consensus and has been used for years. I think changing them requires more than "I don't like it" or "I think organization X should be top tier". If an organization can't show it's top tier for just one year, it probably isn't. Notability is not temporary.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think the point about objective criteria reached by consensus over a period of time is key. However WWE Batman131 has raised a good question. I don't think a period of time has ever been discussed and to be clear if a period was decided on and it was accomplished than the date for being Tier 1 could be backdated. My personal feeling is that 1 year with 3 or more top tier fighters is more than enough and I could accept 6 months. If we take the number of weight devisions multiplied by 10 than the number of fighters contributing to the Top Tier discussion is quite large. In fact I think 3 is a very generous number and if this would be argued again I would be going for double that - but of course I will stay with 3.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe 6 months is fair. Can we establish a consensus @Peter Rehse? WWE Batman131 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to clarify a couple of things that were mentioned in the above posts. First, the idea that a promotion needs to qualify and remain top tier for a length of time has been discussed, and generally agreed to, but no specific time length was ever set. I think a year seems reasonable. Second, besides being discussed on MMA pages, several administrators have been asked previously about notability being retroactive and everyone seemingly has agreed that fights before an organization officially becomes "top tier" do not count towards fighter notability--which makes sense and seems reasonable to me. Third, I agree that 3 is a ridiculously low number of ranked fighters. That number was set at a time when there were more MMA organizations roughly on the same level and slightly fewer weight divisions. It was an attempt to have an objective standard and yet still be inclusive. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal I would like to propose that for an MMA organization to be considered top tier, it must have at least 3 fighters ranked in the top 10 for one continuous year. If there's a time during that year when it doesn't have 3 top 10 fighters, the clock is automatically reset to zero. Note that this doesn't change the requirement for the number of ranked fighters, it merely sets a minimum time length to qualify. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to slightly modify this proposal for the WSOF. In order to simplify things, I would say the WSOF can be considered top tier if it continuously has three top ten fighters for the rest of 2015. That would allow us to add the WSOF to the top tier starting at the beginning of 2016. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the modified proposal. Sounds very fair in respect to WSOF and the time of year. Let's establish a consensus and get this going. WWE Batman131 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that makes 8 months consistently with 3 of 10. OK I am on board but with the understanding if it drops below we return to 0.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I vote in favor of the proposal and the one time exception for the WSOF. I also agree with Peter's understanding of the proposal. I'd like to discuss raising the 3 fighter minimum in the future.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems like we have agreement. If the WSOF drops below 3 top 10 fighters in 2015, the clock resets to zero and they will have to meet the one year condition described in the proposal. Due to changes in the MMA environment since these guidelines were first created, I am willing to discuss raising the 3 fighter minimum. Given the increase in size of the UFC, I would also be willing to consider increasing the 3 top tier fight minimum for fighter notability (or perhaps a 2 win minimum might make more sense). Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone considered expanding this notability requirement to top 15/20? Rankings are very subjective and using Sherdog, while they're the best source of MMA records, gives you a bit of a western bias in the end. This is a big problem with MMA:NOT in general. As opposed to 3 fighters in the top ten, why not allow for 5 of the top 20? Fight Matrix should also be considered. FM is database driven and not based on human selection criteria meaning there's less bias to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.225.247 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps because top 10 is a fairly common sports criteria. For example, it's used for both the boxing and kickboxing notability criteria. It seems a reasonable place to draw the line to say who the top fighters are. Beating the 20th best doesn't have the same cachet. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:MMABIO vs WP:NMMA

It's become clear that WP:MMABIO and WP:NMMA are just different enough that a small number of people could be consitered notable under WP:MMABIO but not under WP:NMMA. WP:MMABIO reads "Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations" and WP:NMMA reads "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC". I dug around and I believe that this will only affect 9 potential articles (listed below) for people who's amature fights were with ShoMMA: Strikeforce Challengers. My understanding is that there was a discussion about the amature/exhibition fights in The Ultimate Fighter also not counting toward notability. I don't personally have a preference, but i would like to see the two guidelines either merged or modified so they are the same or at least more similar.

The word professional should be inserted into WP:MMABIO since WP:NMMA is a higher level. I believe the lack in the former was an oversight. Unless there are screams of outrage I will insert it in a few days.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. In the above list it only affects Ron-Humphrey who has an article as Abongo Humphrey.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Although this comment comes a tad late, I think correcting MMABIO to match NMMA was the right thing to do. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Titan FC

As Titan FC is now airing on UFC Fight Pass it should probably be added to the second tier, given the number of fighters that have moved on to the UFC, and its increased/international exposure because of the pick up.

Second Tier Champs

This was brought up prior to the recent archival: a proposal to add a notability clause for champs in tier2 organizations, to avoid situations where notable fighters are being excluded from inclusion on Wikipedia. Reality is, WSOF champs are notable, and not just the ones who used to fight in the UFC. Same with ONE FC champs.

This has been discussed previously and is at odds with the established consensus. WP:NSPORTS is also pretty clear that athletes need to be competing at the highest level and second tier, by definition, isn't the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Justin Gaethje

The Fact that you keep on deleting this mans wiki article is disgustingly disrespectful.

Look! It's been deleted nearly a dozen times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Gaethje

News site's actually write articles about how disrespectful it is.: http://www.mmafighting.com/2014/11/14/7205355/for-wsof-champ-justin-gaethje-who-needs-wikipedia-when-you-ve-got http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/03/25/justin-gaethje-the-wsof-world-champion-without-a-wiki/

Seriously, what is wrong with you guys?

More Notability Issues

It's that time again.

It seems that a lot of talk arises about notability issues but nothing gets done. Realistically, this is starting to become a recurring problem. Case in point: Justin Gaethje is continually deleted from Wikipedia, despite being a current WSOF champion who is considered a top fighter in his weight class. Sage Northcutt, meanwhile, has one UFC fight, and is able to have a profile (albeit with a notability warning).

Here's the correct answer: both are notable. So is Rin Nakai, who has been a topic of previous discussion as well. All these fighters should have pages, for various reasons. Gaethje is a defending champion in a notable promotion, regardless of the dated tier system on MMA:NOT. Northcutt is one of the hottest rookies in years and has had tons of mainstream attention, making him notable under MMA:NOT criteria 1. Finally, Rin Nakai is also notable as a champion of several smaller promotions, and for having been the first female Japanese fighter to ever fight in the UFC, and on Japanese soil in said event, which makes her notable for multiple reasons.

Something really needs to get done here. When the media is commenting on and even dedicating articles to wikipedia's inability to solve the MMA Notability issue, then you know there's a problem.

Suggestion: All tier2 champions (past/present) should be acceptable under MMA:NOT guidelines. Additionally, WMMA champions in smaller orgs should be acceptable, as women's MMA is underrepresented in MMA:NOT.24.150.23.123 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC) someguy

The WSOF issue I think should be resolved in January. Last i remember was everyone agreed to move them to top tier in January if they maintain x fighters in sherdog rankings till december 31st.
As far as Northcutt goes, if someone wants to put the work in one his page and sandbox it and then publish it when he has 3 top tier fights, then great. But there has to be some sort of criteria, or we will just have pages for every tom dick and harry with 1 ufc fight. Its great that there are people on teh sage bandwagon now who will put in the work, but if he loses his next two fights, breaks his leg and gets cut its the old editors who have to pick up the peices. Not sure about the "media" writing articles about wiki and fighters. An awful lot of the mma "media" is basically repackaged blog sites. Dimspace (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the well established notability criteria in favor of WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
endorse moving WSOF to top tier. Also endorse moving International Vale Tudo Championship to second tier or top tier. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

endorse move of wsof to first tier and second tier champions and top 10 fighters for notability. 148.74.254.186 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose No valid reason given for changing long accepted consensus on notability criteria and competing in second tier is not competing at the highest level. This is already under discussion at WT:MMA and one discussion on the same topic is enough.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WSOF

So there was talk of bumping WSOF to tier 1 in January. The promotion has fighters like Shields, Branch, and Moraes all currently ranked on Sherdog's divisional top ten. Any consensus here?

This is long overdue. The promotion has wide exposure and a fair number of top fighters (lets not forget Okami, Fitch, Justin Gaethje, who is an honorable mention on Sherdog).

Proposal: WSOF should be moved to tier 1, for 2016. Come year's end this can be re-evaluated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.1.232 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I vote yes, there are enough top ten fighters in WSOF for this to be acceptable. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Doing this after an open discussion of almost two months makes little sense to me. It seems like an attempt to circumvent consensus. If you're really interested in having those ranked fighters be notable, I'd suggest you go and support the MMA fighter notability criteria discussion going on at WT:NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Rizin and Notability

Despite the discussion being bumped to two other talk pages, it looks like notability still needs to be fixed. It really went off the rails when it moved to the sports notability page, where a lot of topics like organizational rankings (ie. WSOF to top tier) seemed to be forgotten.

Also - Rizin - where will it stand?

Organizational notability is determined by (under current ruleset)

Criteria supporting notability 

   Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage.
   Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable.
   Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable.
   Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

So Rizin has had lots of national and international media coverage. They are talking about a number of events annually, and did their initial two shows at the end of 2015. They do have a number of well-known fighters (but not necessarily highly ranked fighters).

Second tier?

A new organization that has held only 2 events? Let's wait awhile before assigning this a tier. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

More Notability Issues

It's that time again.

It seems that a lot of talk arises about notability issues but nothing gets done. Realistically, this is starting to become a recurring problem. Case in point: Justin Gaethje is continually deleted from Wikipedia, despite being a current WSOF champion who is considered a top fighter in his weight class. Sage Northcutt, meanwhile, has one UFC fight, and is able to have a profile (albeit with a notability warning).

Here's the correct answer: both are notable. So is Rin Nakai, who has been a topic of previous discussion as well. All these fighters should have pages, for various reasons. Gaethje is a defending champion in a notable promotion, regardless of the dated tier system on MMA:NOT. Northcutt is one of the hottest rookies in years and has had tons of mainstream attention, making him notable under MMA:NOT criteria 1. Finally, Rin Nakai is also notable as a champion of several smaller promotions, and for having been the first female Japanese fighter to ever fight in the UFC, and on Japanese soil in said event, which makes her notable for multiple reasons.

Something really needs to get done here. When the media is commenting on and even dedicating articles to wikipedia's inability to solve the MMA Notability issue, then you know there's a problem.

Suggestion: All tier2 champions (past/present) should be acceptable under MMA:NOT guidelines. Additionally, WMMA champions in smaller orgs should be acceptable, as women's MMA is underrepresented in MMA:NOT.24.150.23.123 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC) someguy

The WSOF issue I think should be resolved in January. Last i remember was everyone agreed to move them to top tier in January if they maintain x fighters in sherdog rankings till december 31st.
As far as Northcutt goes, if someone wants to put the work in one his page and sandbox it and then publish it when he has 3 top tier fights, then great. But there has to be some sort of criteria, or we will just have pages for every tom dick and harry with 1 ufc fight. Its great that there are people on teh sage bandwagon now who will put in the work, but if he loses his next two fights, breaks his leg and gets cut its the old editors who have to pick up the peices. Not sure about the "media" writing articles about wiki and fighters. An awful lot of the mma "media" is basically repackaged blog sites. Dimspace (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the well established notability criteria in favor of WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You see no reason to change the dated notability criteria that already isn't being followed? WP:ILIKEIT is already what is happening here. Neither Northcutt nor Gaethje had a single tier 1 fight, yet Northcutt's page survived MMA:NOT for reasons unknown (read: WP:ILIKEIT) while Gathje's did not. Northcutt still doesn't meet the 3 fight watermark though he will soon. Both fighters are notable however, Gathje is a champion albeit in tier2, but also an honorable mention on Sherdog's rankings. Both are deserving of Wikipedia pages, and Gaethje has arguably accomplished more thus far from a pure sporting perspective. What really seems to be the issue here is a North American and UFC bias, and the site's MMA content is suffering for it.
endorse moving WSOF to top tier. Also endorse moving International Vale Tudo Championship to second tier or top tier. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

endorse move of wsof to first tier and second tier champions and top 10 fighters for notability. 148.74.254.186 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose No valid reason given for changing long accepted consensus on notability criteria and competing in second tier is not competing at the highest level. This is already under discussion at WT:MMA and one discussion on the same topic is enough.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Status on IVTC?? CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has happened since the last discussion to show IVTC's tier should be changed.
endorse moving WSOF to top tier.

Adding Strawweight (115lbs) male weight class to notability

I understand that this has been discuss before, however allow me bring up some useful point to explain why this should happen now:-


1. Top tier promotions such as the UFC have talked a lot about bringing the male version of the weight class in the past.

2. Recognised top tier promotion Shooto, whilst not under the Strawweight name, does have a 115lbs weight class.

3. On the women's side of the 115lbs weight class, they are recognised and are the fuel towards the notability of promotions such as the UFC and Invicta FC.

4. Recognised second tier promotions such as ONE Championship and Pancrase current use the 115lbs male weight class as well as the women's version.

5. The weight class is fully acknowledged in Boxing (both by name and the 115lbs limit), yet is not for MMA men.

6. Recognised MMA ranking site Fight Matrix acknowledges the weight class.

I hope that points come across well, and look forward to contributing more to the debate. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Update - would like to also point out the following from the project page -

Criteria supporting notability

  1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations
  2. Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization
  3. Fought at least three (3) professional fights for top tier MMA organizations

Which means that the likes of Yoshitaka Naito should be considered notable as he as 'Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization (reigning Strawweight champion of Shooto)' and 'Fought at least three (3) professional fights for top tier MMA organizations' which he has despite not being at a higher weight class than Strawweight. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and rejected. There are no current top tier organizations that have a 115 pound weight class. Shooto hasn't been top tier in years. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I must point out, despite not being top tier since 2011, the 115lbs belt has been active in Shooto since at least 2009 from what I can see from List of Shooto champions, which meant that at one point a top tier promotion did have the strawweight division fully active, which does mean we can discuss it past the whole 'no top tier promotions has the division' argument. I must stress that only a select few actually called for Shooto's degrading, which if we regard the Strawweight male division notable, would mean Shooto could be reclassed as top tier, as they currently have two top ten ranked strawweights, and Pancrase would become top tier due to having 6 top ten strawweights.

Also, according to the Strawweight (MMA) page, it says '...the Association of Boxing Commissions officially added the 115 lbs. Strawweight division on July 29, 2015', which means that the division is recognised by the main body for MMA. This really should be enough for this topic. Beside, how was the Flyweight division regarded before the UFC brought it into their organisation? As I understand it, Shooto was top tier up until 2011 because of that division as there wasn't any restriction over the weight class, yet Shooto was left high and dry after the UFC added the division. I think its time we stop using the UFC as a 'de facto' for what is classed as notable, as we always argued with those outside the sport, 'UFC is just a promotion in the sport, MMA IS the sport'.86.183.247.172 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Until top tier organizations have such a division it appears your main reason for including it is an attempt to claim other organizations are suddenly top tier though they have no top fighters in any other division. I would also note that Sherdog, the accepted MMA standard, does not rank fighters in that division. Papaursa (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote

With nothing else to say, I will begin by putting in my vote as a Yes to classifying the male 115lbs division notable. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seen as there hasn't been any opposing argument as of my last writings, I will include details of the strawweight male division onto the main project page, until a fair argument against such a move is made. Further discussion over Shooto's reinstation to top tier, with further evidence through WP:N#TEMP, and reclassing Pancrase to top tier will be discuss below. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Shooto's reinstation to top tier

Between the male 115lbs division being classed as notable, and with WP:N#TEMP, which clearly states 'Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.' This means that Shooto should never have been declassed from top tier status. For these two reasons I no longer see any argument to keep them as second tier, and to move them back to top tier. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote

endorse Supporting evidence is proof enough. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose There's been a 7 week discussion about organization notability going on at WT:MMA. Coming along afterwards and completely creating your own criteria looks like an attempt to circumvent long standing consensus. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In which case why not invite more users into the debate, rather than doing it quietly on a different page than claim it was met with an overall consensus, if such debates take place then at least get the word out as much as possible by posting them on pages such as this one? 86.183.247.172 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would say it makes more sense to put it on the project's talk page because more people will see it there. That's where people active in the project will look for discussions. Papaursa (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoting Pancrase to top tier

Due to the inclusion of the male 115lbs division, Pancrase should be promoted to top tier with immediate effect due to contributing 6/10 of the top ten strawweights in the world. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote

endorse My points above are my given reasons. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose There's been a 6 week discussion about organization notability going on at WT:MMA. Coming along afterwards and completely creating your own criteria looks like an attempt to circumvent long standing consensus. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In which case why not invite more users into the debate, rather than doing it quietly on a different page than claim it was met with an overall consensus, if such debates take place then at least get the word out as much as possible by posting them on pages such as this one? 86.183.247.172 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would say it makes more sense to put it on the project's talk page because more people will see it there. That's where people active in the project will look for discussions. Papaursa (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove 'Most Recent Event' and 'Total Events' from 'Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions' on project page

This is just due to the amount of time need to update each section for each promotion. Besides the Sherdog link for each promotion covers this better. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think these columns hurt and they do add some information. As long as someone is willing to keep these up to date, I don't see the problem. However, I don't have strong feelings about this. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Problem is that it isn't up to date, infact some are listed as far back as 2013 for most recent events, despite being very active. Even if a user is prepared to bring it up to date, I guarentee that it will be behind within two weeks. Better off gone. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's not being kept up to date, then I would consider that a valid reason for removing those columns. Papaursa (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Top Tier
Promotion Men Women Events Source
Invicta Fighting Championships X Events 2012 - 2016
Ultimate Fighting Championship X X Events 1993 - 2016
Top Tier - Defunct
Affliction Entertainment 2008 - 2009  • Dream (mixed martial arts) 2008 - 2012  • Fighting Network Rings (events held between 1995 and 2002) (Japan, Holland, USA and Russia only) 1995 - 2014  • Jewels (mixed martial arts) (title bouts and tournament winners only) 2008 - 2013  • Pride Fighting Championships 1997 - 2007  • Strikeforce 2006 - 2013  • World Extreme Cagefighting 2001 - 2010  • World Victory Road 2008 - 2010
Second Tier
Promotion Men Women Events Source
BAMMA X 2009 - 2016
Bellator Fighting Championships (Top Tier through 2015) X X Events 2009 - 2016
Deep (mixed martial arts) X X Events 2001 - 2016
Jungle Fight X 2003 - 2016
King of the Cage X X Events 1999 - 2016
Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki X X 2004 - 2016
M-1 Global X Events 1997 - 2016
ONE Fighting Championship X X Events 2011 - 2016
Pancrase X X Events 1993 - 2016
Shooto (Top Tier through 2011, only events held in Japan) X Events 1989 - 2016
Tachi Palace Fights X 2009 - 2016
Ultimate Challenge MMA X X 2008 - 2015
Universal Reality Combat Championship X 2002 - 2015
World Series of Fighting X X Events 2012 - 2016
Second Tier - Defunct
Cage Warriors 2002 - 2014  • Maximum Fighting Championship 2001 - 2014  • Shark Fights 2008 - 2011  • Cage Rage Championships 2002 - 2008  • Elite Xtreme Combat 2007 - 2008  • Palace Fighting Championship 2007 - 2009
I'm convinced about the merits of removing those columns, but I think the current grouping of the organizations is better because it clearly separates the men and women and the top and second tiers--especially regarding the defunct organizations. Papaursa (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I tend to cram too much into tables sometimes so i tried to go the other way. I 100% see your point on just combining the columns and not trying to combine the defunct organizations into a single row. Do you think any of the columns from the table on my sandbox would be useful for this table? Linking to the champions lists, fighters lists or event footers? Also am i correct in assuming that when a top tier organization is no longer top tier, it should be moved to the second tier section? Kevlar (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not unreasonable, but I think it's better to leave it listed under top tier along with the dates it had that status. Since top tier fights are what determines fighter notability, I think leaving top tier organizations in that list makes it easier to check. That way editors don't have to hunt for what may no longer be top tier organizations--they're all in the same list. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think "Option 1" has all the suggestions Papaursa recommended. I only include the second because i personally like to see that info on a similar table, but i fully understand if other people don't like it... it's a bit cluttered. The only other thing i'm going to look into would be to collapse the defunct sections, but i can't find a way to collapse just part of a table, i'll keep looking though.

Thoughts? Kevlar (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm not interested but I have no real preference other than to say good and necessary work. Slight leaning to Option 1 - not sure what will happen with those curly brackets in Option 2.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think both versions deal with my concerns so I have no strong preference. Option 1 is a little cleaner, but option 2 contains more information. Papaursa (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving World Series of Fighting To Top Tier

It looks like this list is pretty out of date. World Series of Fighting is considered by many to be the 3rd largest professional MMA promotion in the country. It's broadcast partner NBCSN is a national basic cable outlet which televises live events once a month and replays events many times. WSOF also has a number of broadcasts every year on NBC. The next scheduled live event is set to air on NBC in December of 2016.

Some of WSOF's champions are considered some of the best fighters in MMA including Marlon Moraes, Justin Gaethje (who can't seem to get approved for his own page on Wikipedia because of the MMA notability ranking,) and David Branch who is one of the only fighters in history to hold two belts in two divisions at the same time.

At the very least, is there a way we can agree that Justin Gaethje deserves to have his page moved from drafts? He's fighting this weekend in a highly anticipated, nationally televised championship event and it would be great if we could get this cleared up quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaviGATR (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree, I am not a frequent wikipedia user, but am curious about who it is that manages these tiers of MMA organisations and why they have this power over determining who is a notable fighter or not. Justin Gaethje is clearly a notable fighter with a record of 16 - 0 professional fights, and a great deal of hype about him in the online MMA community at the moment. In fact, basically any MMA fighter who has an undefeated record of 15 professional fights or more is a notable fighter, and I strongly disagree with this criteria that prioritizes fighters in the UFC organisation or Bellator. I'd go so far as to suggest that there is the potential for corruption by the big organisations by deleting the profiles of highly successful fighters from smaller orgs that are created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.204.183 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Justin Gaethje

Everyday that goes by that Wikipedia refuses to add this man's wikipedia is proof of corruption among the moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B859:2E20:404D:ED76:DBFF:2C9 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Every previous discussion, including the one just completed less than 2 months ago has explained why WSOF is not top tier. If you really want to support Gaethje's article, you should support the MMA fighter notability proposal at WT:NSPORT. If that were approved, Gaethje would meet the notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Considering the list of organizations was updated a few months ago, it can hardly be considered out of date. Long standing consensus and procedures have dictated which organizations are top tier. Claiming corruption by other editors is certainly not WP:AGF and is more an indication of sour grapes. I also notice you didn't take Mdtemp's suggestion, so you must not really care about Gaethje's notability if you can't be bothered to support those who are advocating for it (like me) at the proper venues. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing WP:MMANOT to match WP:NMMA

I would like to modify this page to match the accepted standard at WP:NSPORT because that is a guideline and this is only an essay. Any objections?Mdtemp (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection. It really is only the line about publications which is covered in WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. It's a minor change and improves consistency. Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Micky Gall

I think Micky Gall should be an exception here. People tuned in for 203 to see this plus the main event. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that he's won 2 UFC fights, it seems very improbable that he won't get a third top tier fight. Technically he doesn't yet meet WP:NMMA, but I don't think it's likely an article on him would be put up for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving Bellator back to top tier

Bellator has 9 fighters ranked in the top ten in MMAjunkie.com's rankings. Vitaly Minakov, Phil Davis, Liam McGeary, Rory MacDonald, Andrey Koreshkov, Benson Henderson, Daniel Straus, Patrício Freire and Eduardo Dantas are all in the top ten. PEllis (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

New parameters for a Bellator fighter's notability?

RE: WP:MMATIER / James Gallagher (fighter)
Fighter notability used to be granted upon three top tier fights (which Bellator would provide), but now the goalposts seem to have been moved to say that these fights must have taken place before 2016 in Bellator's case. What exactly was the rationale for this decision? The fact that Bellator now have their most high profile roster ever? That they attracted fighters like Rory MacDonald, Chael Sonnen, Phil Davis, Matt Mitrione and Benson Henderson from the UFC in the last year? Oh, and signed Fedor Emelianenko to boot. Please explain to me how a year like that constitutes a lowering of their status. These amendments are both illogical and unsustainable. If Bellator are now so much worse than they were between 2009 and 2015, then they should just be made a Tier 2 organisation, plain and simple (which would be absolutely ridiculous). If they are still Tier 1, then stop this bureaucracy and bin such a vague, stupid rule.
— IIISmokeyIII (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@PRehse and PEllis:: Although he (now) has three main card fights for Bellator, I missed when reviewing that Bellator appears to have been removed from MMATIER as of 2015. That said, if this archived post is correct, does Bellator's place in MMATIER need to be revisited given the criteria for inclusion? Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@PRehse, Hydronium Hydroxide, and IIISmokeyIII:: Bellator was removed from top tier status in the beginning of 2016 due to not having enough fighters ranked in the top ten (Sherdog.com was the site used). I'm willing to have a discussion on this, since Bellator does have multiple fighters ranked in the top ten on MMAjunkie.com. I made a post about it, but it received no replies. PEllis (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@PEllis: I've posted on the main WikiProject talk page in the hope that more bodies might appear here to discuss various tier issues. But honestly, if nobody objects soon I'd just go ahead and make the change, by the letter of the top tier criteria they seem to meet it. Katy B. (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Katy Blackwood: Thanks. I might do that. PEllis (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally I never liked the idea of only UFC being in the top tier for men BUT I accepted the downgrade for Bellator because they really did crash and burn with respect to their stable of fighters. Are they back, not just a momentary blip, is this a matter of forum hunting vis a vis MMAjunkie.com? The original downgrade was discussed quite a bit before done so these questions should be discussed. Again personally I think MMAjunkie.com has as much weight as Sherdog (two is better than one). Placement in Tier 2 is not important with regards to fighter notability so I think that is a distraction for the moment. I want to see a bit more input before Bellator (Papaursa) is re-instated and if it is I don't think there should be a break for the weak year(s) - that is just clumsy.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@PRehse: Bellator does have multiple fighters ranked on Sherdog, seven to be exact. PEllis (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I know that - they crawled back up - but the long standing consensus was consistently 10. IIRC it was because they did not meet that requirement that they were dropped down.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
My thinking on all of this is that it's very easy to compare top tier to UFC, as in "must be as significant as UFC", which really shouldn't be the discussion. Is Bellator, in its profile in 2017, less significant than promotions like Fighting Network Rings and Affliction Entertainment were during their agreed top tier runs? If they're considered top tier during a time when MMA wasn't so ubiquitous, surely others should be now? After all, it's a discussion about notability. Katy B. (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As I've said previously the criteria were originally proposed when there was a large number of organizations with top fighters and editors wanted to be as inclusive as possible, within reason, so the number was set low. I think the last discussion I remember was to raise the number of top 10 fighters for a top tier organization to 6, roughly 1 per weight class. The numbers have generally been considered a starting point for discussions. Nothing has ever been added, or deleted, from top tier status without a discussion. Sherdog has also been considered the go-to source for MMA which is why their rankings are used. Having one source also makes things less confusing. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@PRehse and Papaursa: So what happens next? Do we wait a certain amount of time to see if Bellator can maintain this number of fighters or wait until they have reached 10? PEllis (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
My feeling is that they should demonstrate long standing requirements (10) for a period of time.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That's fine with me. PEllis (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi guys, havent had a chance to contribute lately but I read through everything here and I appreciate your views. I just had a glance through the rankings and thought i'd post them for the sake of a record, if nothing else.

If we all want to wait a while before reinstating them then thats fine, but i feel its just prolonging the inevitable. Bellator's recruitment drive doesnt seem to be slowing down anytime soon and I think anyone would consider that a very strong looking roster already. Especially when you consider the grassroots talent that they've signed up like Dillon Danis and Aaron Pico, and the other unranked names they have like Fedor Emelianenko, Cheick Kongo, Michael Page, Wanderlei Silva and Chael Sonnen. Even in the women's divisions, theres fighters like Valerie Letourneau who went five rounds for Joanna's belt not too long ago. IIISmokeyIII (talk) 17:17, 06 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of ACB

Hello. I just wanted to raise the question of where Absolute Championship Berkut fits on the list - I suspect it would be best added under second tier? Katy B. (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Yeah this seems legit --Mpasqualy (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability/Archive_9&oldid=1038105394"