Deletion of UFC 144

Comment: UFC events do not fail  as MMA is not a routine sporting event.  And as stated above, notability is not temporary and the timing of sources is irrelevant.  The event was notable then, and still is now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Per , this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPORTSEVENT)

Comment: I said this the last time this article was brought up for deletion just before it was withdrawn, and I'll point to it again: the Japan Times source cited in the article establishes the event's lasting notability. It absolutely passes . I'd appreciate it if this comment wasn't deleted this time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: for the time being; there is currently a Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#RfC:_Amending_requirements_for_WP:MMAEVENT|RfC regarding the notability of MMA events. The topic passes  and I feel the ongoing discussion regarding the handling of these events should take place in the relevant venues rather than taking these articles to AfD. Respectfully request that nominator withdraw nomination(s) until the RfC/MEDCAB/etc has concluded
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The topic passes , per http://www.lfpress.com/sports/othersports/2012/02/25/19426271.html, http://www.lfpress.com/sports/othersports/2012/02/23/19412761.html, http://www.gazette.com/sports/saitama-134225-springs-title.html, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/sp20120228a1.html, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mma/post/2012-02-26/henderson-outpoints-edgar-wins-ufc-title/634892/1. Also per , "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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: per rationale provided over at rticles_for_deletion/UFC_149:_Aldo_vs._Koch_(2nd_nomination). In brief, there is currently a much larger discussion about S which is likely to be going to  and trying to act unilaterally to remove these articles in spite of that is disruptive to that process. I can't help but speculate this looks like a last ditch attempt by a partisan editor to avoid a consensus and bully a viewpoint through before dispute resolution can be brought to bear (just my observations of the discussion over at 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:MMAEVENT||WP:MEDCAB||WP:MMANOT)

Comment: per first half of Rushyo. Nom is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see ). A compromise of '''merge to 2012 in UFC events''' is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: or merge to 2012 in UFC events. The article seems to primarily contain only |routine coverage of fight results.  There is really no well-sourced prose, as requested by , to establish why this event is/was notable.  Appears there may be non-MMA sources covering the event, but they aren't being used to establish notability of the event.  If the article had prose written up and became more in line with UFC 94 or UFC 140 there would be more !vote of keep, IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:SPORTSEVENT)

Comment: The topic passes , per http://www.lfpress.com/sports/othersports/2012/02/25/19426271.html, http://www.lfpress.com/sports/othersports/2012/02/23/19412761.html, http://www.gazette.com/sports/saitama-134225-springs-title.html, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/sp20120228a1.html, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mma/post/2012-02-26/henderson-outpoints-edgar-wins-ufc-title/634892/1. Also per , "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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP)