Deletion of UFC 157

Comment: Per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEVENT)

Comment: This is the first women UFC event ever. There is significant notability about this event. Also, how ignorant to say this is just another "routine" event. This event and article meet both  and   — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/68.44.214.85|68.44.214.85
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: First-ever women's fight in MMA history, major PPV event. Does not fail , as '''the event is notable and almost certain to take place''' (my bold
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: there is zero indication at this time that this event will pass the  policy, WP is not a NEWSPAPER|reposatory for sports gossip or results
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: And redirect also all the other ~200 mini-articles in List_of_UFC_events. The only relevant datum are the date, the place, the participants and the winners. Merge the notable information if there is any. But wikipedia is not and  collection of information. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it doesn't have to include every event that was ever reported in a newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: UFC 1 through UFC 154 are substantial articles that meet . The fact that promotions for 157 are already in place would suggest that  wouldn't necessarily apply such as 2014 Winter Olympics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: no evidence that this will pass |notability, likely that it is just a routine event like all the other UFC matches and therefore should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Fails #NEWS. It's a sporting event. Of course reliable sources are going to cover it to provide enough content to meet . The topic still needs to meet #NEWS, which reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Just about all the keep positions argue that that this event will be covered in depth in the future. How would they know that if they did not believe that coverage of UFC 157 is routine news reporting? While that in depth coverage assures passage of , it at the same time causes the topic to fail  #NEWS and the closer can derive a routine sports news reporting conclusion directly from the strength of the keep arguments predicting that this UFC 157 topic will receive news reporting coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: Given that there are a small number of upcoming UFC events at any given time (9 at the moment), would an omnibus article be appropriate for these articles? My understanding of the '2012 in UFC' omnibus was that it quickly became too large and began to appear cluttered and unmanageable. 'Upcoming UFC Events' could also include the currently deleted articles for UFC 155 and UFC 156. This could all but remove the debate over . If this is acceptable to those who are currently voting '''Delete''' i don't see any reason i wouldn't change my vote from '''keep''' to '''merge
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Most individual sporting events are not notable; we know from past experience that certain events (e.g. individual Super Bowls) always get substantial coverage beyond contemporary news sources, but are individual mixed-martial-arts events so known?  In order to fulfill our |not-a-newspaper standards, we need to have more than just current news stories: books or academic journal articles, or news stories that look at this event as a past event instead of covering it simply because it's news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Every UFC event isn't inherently notable, but the sources Silverseren provided certainly show that this one is, with advance coverage from multiple reliable sources.  The  argument has been pretty thoroughly debunked, and it seems clear that this easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: USA Today'' appears to think this event is notable, so I believe we should have an article for it.  doesn't apply here because it is intended to discourage ''editor'' speculation. It even states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I am not buying the WP:NOT argument here either. The relevant policy is . Much of the policy is meant to discourage people from opening up their newspaper and copying everything into articles. The policy states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This event has been widely covered in diverse sources. The next criteria down on the policy says, "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." But this event doesn't even need to jump to the may or may not be notable because it has received coverage and the scope is national demonstrated by the article in ''USA Today''. Further, the nominator claims that this part applies: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." But it does not apply: UFC 157 is not a crime, not an accident, a death, celebrity or political news, shock news, a water cooler story, or a viral phenomena. It simply does not apply to this case. I believe I present a strong refutation of the nominator's arguments, and I believe the article should be kept as it does not violate any policy and it is notable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:EVENT||WP:GNG)