Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMMAC 1
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
— User:Ravenswing, 20:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ROUTINE (Wikipedia:Notability)