Deletion of Bellator 55

Comment: I am uncomfortable with episode level detail articles unless they can be sourced using third party 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: User Osubuckeyeguy brings up a good point, but I do think it falls under therstuffexists.  However, it was enough to make my vote a weak one.  As for Bellator's notability (commented on earlier in this discussion), the archived discussion on the MMA project talk page shows Bellator barely gained entry as a top tier event and was a distant fourth among U.S. promotions behind UFC, WEC, and Strikeforce.  I suspect that all of these pages are simply routine sports reporting, but I'm hesitant because I have to admit I didn't look at all 57
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: None of the events I checked (I'll admit I didn't look at every one) seem to pass .  They all seem to be just routine sports coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: As to that, the claim that consensus is in favor of these individual event articles is false.  I see the following at , the notability essay for the applicable WikiProject: "Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". WP:N also says "notability is not temporary" and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability.""  Therefore, these articles stand and fall on the GNG, and meeting it hasn't been proven
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MMANOT)

Comment: per . We have articles about seasons and championships, not individual weekly matches. The arguments against bundling the nominations appear to have no basis in policy or guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPORTSEVENT)

Comment: The notability guideline page for MMA () says "Individual events are not considered notable ...".  The consensus has been that means MMA events are not automatically notable, regardless of organization, not that they can't be notable.  However, I don't believe any UFC article has ever been removed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MMANOT)

Comment: per the comments that I have made above. I see no evidence that individual screenings of this sporting event/TV entertainment program are any more notable than, say, individual Football League Championship matches, each of which has many more reports in national newspapers than have been presented for any of these articles. And please don't quote  at me unless you can explain why MMA events should have a far lower standard of notability than events in much more notable sports
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: Without commenting on the notability of these articles, I've a few observations.First off, in point of fact, no part of Wikipedia's mission statement, policies or guidelines state that a goal of the site is to serve as a primary web destination for MMA fans to read about purported "top-tier" martial arts events.  Articles are judged as to whether they meet verifiability and notability criteria, not as to whether MMA fans find them useful or whether |Wikipedia serves as a convenient web host.Secondly, I question the blithe claim that "consensus for many years" has existed for the notability of event articles for this organization, which was only founded three years ago.  That being said, even stipulating that this is the "number two MMA promotion" (a claim that Strikeforce would dispute), it is a far, far distant second to the UFC, and its individual events gain no automatic notability.Finally, while they are disliked by many Keep proponents, bundled AfDs are not only permitted by the deletion policy, they are encouraged in such cases.  Osubuckeyeguy's "rule of thumb" that the number of editors participating in a deletion discussion ought to equate to the number of articles being nominated is a curious notion that forms no part of deletion policy, and any admin attempting to rule by it would provide a nice, juicy ground for overturning the decision at DRV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: At least some of the 57 articles pass  in my opinion.  Trying to show sources for all 57 is not a feasible tasks for the moment so I'll do some spot checks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)