Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Sport Combat Federation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Sport Combat Federation

Article claims notability, but doesn't provide independant sources. Gnews shows no hits. Ghits come back with mostly forums and sites associated with the org. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the claims are true (300-400 events per year?) it's notable. JJL (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said....claims it, but I can't find third party support for that claim. Did you come up with something I missed? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment some support at [1], [2], [3], but not enough to fully dispel the concerns raised by aktsu. JJL (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the links you posted is from ISCF. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, it was the third one. JJL (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the 2nd link has nothing more recent than 2007 and the first one shows 2008 as the last event. Truthfully, that makes me feel they are even less notable than before. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see nothing to suggest notability. Their MO seems to be to put their name on events promoted and put togheter by actual promotions (and sanctioned by actual sanctioning bodies, i.e. the state athletic commisions) while giving out titles to all the non-notable or barely notable fighters they can get to (because if they were actually notable they would sign with proper promotions whos titles are't meaningless). Seems to me the only reason some promotions are on board with this is because they are so small their own titles would actually mean even less than ISCF's (and I guess because "ISCF" sounds kind of impressive if you're clueless to what's behind it). The sole pro MMA "world" championship title they've given out was to Din Thomas in 2000, and he still haven't defended it even though he's fought 20 times (14 wins, 7 losses) since then because none of the promotions reckognized the title; i.e. none of the fights have been "ISCF-sanctioned"-bouts. Unless sources are provided to show the ISCF is notable outside their own little MMA-bubble I have to go "delete". --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The big number doesnt mean anything (WP:BIGNUMBER). I find the lack of notability the big issue Corpx (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.