Deletion of OMMAC 1

Comment: Routine events for a lower-tier promotion. Does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as from the guidelines within  (and this doesn't mean that the above vote and me are sockpuppets for anyone looking to score cheap points on this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Editors should note that this is not a vote on the MMA organization, but on the individual events.  The question being discussed isn't whether the organization is notable, but rather whether or not articles consisting only on fight results are notable.   says they're not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: All of these consist solely of reporting fight results, thus failing  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: The articles consist of only fight results thus failing  and  (which says "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:N)

Comment: Understandably, the creator of these articles is unfamiliar with relevant Wikipedia notability and verifiability guidelines, however expert he may or may not be in MMA.  He claims that these matches meet the GNG, but let's review some elements of the GNG:''"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.''  Only one of the independent sources listed does so - the other is simply match results debarred by .''"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.''  These are webblogs, in effect; they are not newspapers or magazines.  What evidence does the creator have to proffer that these sites are regarded, in the MMA world, as reliable?''"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.'' This debars the outfit's own website, of course, and with only one other qualifying source at all ...I am, by the bye, unimpressed with the creator's attempt to compare this outfit with the UFC.  The UFC, of course, is a highly notable organization, with international broadcasts, national TV contracts, print magazines discussing its doings, and its matches discussed on TV shows and in daily newspapers.  This is like suggesting that Conference South should have season articles because the Premier League does
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: These events fail every one of the following: , , , and .  Given the canvassing both on and off of Wikipedia and the attempts to stack the votes, I don't envy the closing admin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:EVENT||WP:ROUTINE||WP:MMANOT)

Comment: Take your pick of a number of policies and guidelines these fail : , , , and ; none of those supporting retention have indicated how these articles meet these polices
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:EVENT||WP:ROUTINE||WP:MMAEVENT)

Comment: as from within the guidelines  and  The events are important for mixed martial arts and it's fans. OMMAC is one of the biggest shows in Europe and many fighter use this promotion to gain entry to the UFC. Wikipedia should provide this information for people all of the world
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GNG)