Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4

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

also nominating:

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 2
World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 3
World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 1

all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. routine non notable sporting results. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sengoku was one of the biggest orgs in the world and these events feature very notable fighters and world title fights. WölffReik (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the articles there were no world title fights at any of these events. Also, the issue isn't about the organization or the fighters, it's about whether the event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search finds [1][2][3] and [4] for Sengoku 4 and more may be found in Japanese press. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles are merely sports reports and comments about an upcoming event. Not sure if that really meets WP:EVENT. It certainly doesn't show the first 3 events were notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything but routine sports coverage and I don't see anything of historical significance. Astudent0 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The quality of fighters in these events and the reputation of the promoting organization exceeds that of similar AfDs for which there is a clear 'delete' consensus. I am concerned that deleting these articles would set a precedent that could then be used to wipe out large numbers of MMA event pages. I would much rather see people nominate bottom-tier organizations and events for deletion, as I have recently done, than rush to delete events like these that the MMA WikiProject has identified as being associated with top-tier promotions. Lots of notable fighters who are currently competing in the UFC were recruited by the promotion after successful stints with the Sengoku promotion. That, it seems, is the historical significance of these events. Even if no titles were contested in these particular events, the competitors included multiple Olympic medalists and past/future UFC title holders. These aren't backyard bum fights we're talking about here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating the deletion of the organization or questioning that there were notable fighters, but what is the enduring historical significance of, for example, Sengoku 3? I think to claim every MMA card, even from the UFC, is historically significant is incorrect. I do agree that there are a lot of low level MMA organizations and events that are more worthy of removal. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, sporting events are rarely ever historically significant. Sports exist for the entertainment of the fans and the satisfaction of the competitors. If we're being honest, even the Superbowl is of little historical significance (how can something really be truly significant if it happens every year like clockwork). One could easily take a strict interpretation of the notability guidelines and advocate for deleting the majority of mixed martial arts event pages. I'm sure Libstar would be happy to nominate every one of them - it isn't hard to envision him tagging several hundred articles in a single AfD with his trademark "here we go again, another sprawling series of fighting results with no evidence of meeting WP:EVENT." I just don't see what that would constructively accomplish. I prefer to see AfDs being used like scissors to trim Wikipedia like a bonsai tree, rather than like a flame thrower to clear cut the entire forest. The question as I see it is whether Wikipedia should remain a primary web destination for people to read about top-tier martial arts events or not. If that is the goal, then the nominated pages fall comfortably above that threshold. I realize this conversation is beyond the scope of this AfD, but given the rate at which these AfDs keep appearing, it is one that the Wikipedia community needs to have (not just two or three editors who follow martial arts AfDs). I could spend an hour chasing down Sengoku references in the Japanese press to save these articles, but there is really no point if this nominator is just going to put another dozen pages on the chopping block tomorrow and a dozen more the day after that and so on. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. You could reasonably say that very few things are significant in the greater scheme of things. I try to think of them as whether or not they're significant in their field. For example, I tend to believe fight cards with world title fights for major organizations are notable, but cards with just another set of fights are not. This would be simpler if people who create the articles would search for some good sources instead of just reiterating fight results and moving on to the next event. Papaursa (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing enough coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2011 (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.