- MMA_HEAT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I do not believe the article MMA HEAT should have been deleted. It provided information about a valid news source within the mixed martial arts (MMA) community. Everything within the article could be confirmed on the company's official website, http://www.MMAheat.com, as well as their Facebook fan page, http://www.facebook.com/MMAheat. If this article was not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion than UFC, Sherdog and many other articles should be deleted as well. MMA H.E.A.T. has been making notable contributions to the MMA community since 2007. Most recently, they were the only news organization to be filming Chuck Liddell's UFC 100 Tao Beach Party in Las Vegas on 7/10, Fedor Emelianenko's press conference discussing his agreement with EA Sports on 7/29 and Cris Cyborg's body slam of Tito Ortiz at Cleber Jiu Jitsu at the beginning of last month. Eckinc (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC) ~~[reply]
- Relist, I see nothing to indicate that the AFD was closed improperly on Cirt's part. Would be a fairly open and shut except that the AFD tag was only on the page for three days - while I doubt it will survive a full relisting I think we should do so just to make sure that procedure is followed and all interested editors have a chance to contribute to the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Pretty sure I (actually Twinkle) added it when I nominated... Could someone double-check and also check how long it was up before it was removed? --aktsu (t / c) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, you did add it via Twinkle when you nominated it, and it did stick around for a few days. In fact, it was only absent for about 20 hours, which is less than the "several days" implied by the user in the discussion. Serves me right for not looking more closely into it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse, I don't think that the defect in the deletion process was serious enough to invalidate it, and this nomination appears to be an attempt at AFD round 2, which DRV isn't for. Also, the idea behind contacting the deleting admin before listing here is so that you can have a discussion and understand the reason for deletion, so that you can resolve the issue. Asking the deleting admin and waiting only 33 minutes before opening a DRV isn't all that helpful, especially when the admin wasn't there to reply. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following press release outlines a partnership between iBN Sports and MMA H.E.A.T.: http://www.ibnsports.com/inthenews.aspx?article=xml/pressrel/bryant.xml. This article provides an example of the exclusive mixed martial arts news coverage provided by MMA H.E.A.T.: http://www.ibnsports.com/prArticle.aspx?article=14. And this article by Reuters, outlines the importance of iBN Sports, MMA H.E.A.T.'s media partner: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS178373+26-May-2009+MW20090526. Can you please explain why the MMA_HEAT article was deemed invalid? It is a valued news source for the mixed martial arts community. Eckinc (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The general notability guideline requires coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Press releases by something and it's partners aren't independant. The first two of these are issued by what you term as their "media partner" these are independant of the subject. The third of these I haven't looked at, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word that they show the importance of iBN Sports. Problem is that the article isn't about iBN sports and notability isn't infectious, so their importance or otherwise is pretty much irrelevant. Are there independant articles about (not passing mentions) MMA H.E.A.T published by reliable third parties? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, per the first sentence of Stifle's response, with which I entirely concur.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything contained within the article can be confirmed on the corporate website, http://www.MMAheat.com, Facebook fan page, http://www.facebook.com/MMAheat, and Twitter account, http://www.twitter.com/MMAheat. Furthermore, content produced by MMA H.E.A.T. is syndicated and can be found on numerous websites. In the mixed martial arts community, MMA H.E.A.T.'s content is readily known. It's quite frustrating that a legitimate page was removed on account of a self interpreted technicality. For those that want to delete this article, can you deny the existance of MMA H.E.A.T.? Can you deny the exclusive interviews that are found on http://www.MMAheat.com with the largest names in the mixed martial arts industry - Dana White, Randy Couture, Fedor Emelianenko, Chuck Liddell, Brett Rogers, Frank Shamrock, Josh Barnett, etc,? Can you deny MMA H.E.A.T. had exclusive UFC 100 coverage of Chuck Liddell's Tao Beach Party, TapouT's party at the Venetian, etc.? Perhaps I can't link directly to verbiage describing the accomplishments of MMA H.E.A.T. that will satisfy your requirements, but I can direct you to actual video footage which should. If you're unwilling to confirm the existance of everything I've claimed, there's really nothing else I can think of to convince you otherwise. Eckinc (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sites you mentioned are reliable, third-party sources. Please read WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Stifle. In any event, WP:ENN. Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MMA H.E.A.T. has appeared in independent and reliable newspapers: i.e. Sports Illustrated's Joss Gross has cited MMA H.E.A.T. and Karyn Bryant as an authority on the female perspective of MMA on radio interviews. MMA H.E.A.T. has been on HDNet's television program "MMA Worldwide," epsidode "Nor Cal MMA" originally airing 9/25/2009. MMA H.E.A.T.'s video news updates appear throughout the highly respected MMA site, http://www.promma.info. In addition, Pro MMA's Cage Divas recently approached MMA H.E.A.T. to have it's co-founder, Karyn Bryant, as a guest on their show: http://prommainfo.podbean.com/2009/09/15/cagedivas-episode-2-featuring-keri-anne-taylor-and-karyn-bryant. MMA H.E.A.T. has also provided video content to M-1 Global, MMA Payout, MMA Jacked and Frank Shamrock. To address the concerns posted by user 82.7.40.7, iBN Sports is an independent corporation and entity. They provide coverage for a large number of sports and approached MMA H.E.A.T. to provide coverage of mixed martial arts. Despite iBN Sports and MMA H.E.A.T.'s joint efforts, the two are independent of each other. http://www.ibnsports.com/inthenews.aspx?article=xml/pressrel/bryant.xml and http://www.ibnsports.com/prArticle.aspx?article=14 should be considered as third party, reliable sources discussing MMA H.E.A.T. Eckinc (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability and Notability are different things, I don't think anyone has said they don't exist, or that it's not true (though reading the cached version it reads more like a fan site/ad than an objective encyclopedia article). Mere existance on its own is not one of the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria. The general notability guideline is aboue looking as to if the rest of the world finds them interesting enough to write about in reliable third party sources. As media partner what are you expecting iBN to say about them? Are you expecting them to be totally objective? Would you expect them to not mention and promote their partners? Of course they have a interest in promoting their partner; They are not independant. Regarding some of your other points, please read the general notability guidelines - does it mention exclusive interviews as an inclusion criteria? If these interviews are really significant, why aren't any reliable third party sources writing about how important they are? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, they are talking about them; both radio and television. MMA H.E.A.T. produces video content and that content is discussed in the same medium. Radio and television should qualify as reliable third party sources. Regarding iBN Sports, it's true they are going to promote their media partner, however they were not always a media partner. http://www.ibnsports.com/inthenews.aspx?article=xml/pressrel/bryant.xml discusses their choice to partner with MMA H.E.A.T. They state, "“With Karyn's experience, professionalism, and on-camera presence, she will have a major impact on MMA and the MMA fan. Her knowledge and insight about the sport is highly regarded within the industry." This should be considered notable. Regardless, when the former UFC Middleweight Champion and former King of Pancrase, Frank "The Legend" Shamrock, endorses MMA H.E.A.T. by tweeting "follow @KarynBryant @MMAHeat for latest MMA news," that should verify the importance of MMA H.E.A.T. - Posted 11 hours ago: http://twitter.com/frankshamrock. I only wish their were some Wikipedia administrators that actually knew about the sport of mixed martial arts. This is quite frustrating. Eckinc (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins don't need to know about MMA, if it's properly sourced they can look at the source and see that indeed there is broader notability. Again read the general notability guideline - brief endorsements aren't non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The press release for iBN you seem keen on quoting is PR puff about the tie up, they are unlikely to enter into a tie with a PR piece saying we're tieing up with X who are pretty crap but cheap or some such. No matter how many times you quote it or how much you want it to be, it's a PR piece from an interested party. Without knowing about what is said about them on the radio or television it's hard to judge if it is suitable material for notability purposes. If it's just mentions, references to programming occurring etc. then it's unlikely to be much use, it needs to be about the subject, not just passing reference to it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've provided broader notability: an MMA sports writer for Sports Illustrated, Pro MMA, a Cage Divas radio interview and inclusion on an HDNet television program. Have any of you "administrators" listened to the radio interview, watched the HDNet program from just last week or referenced any of the videos? This seems like a personal attack. The same user, aktsu, has initiated several requests for deletion of my contributions. Seeing how much of aktsu's content is also centralized around the mixed martial arts industry, I'm beginning to think he's trying to block the competition. Just my opinion. Eckinc (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, not everyone is on Wikipedia only to promote themselves as you appear to be... If you actually look at my edits I think you'll have a pretty hard time backing up that accusation. --aktsu (t / c) 23:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed this states the relationship as "sole authorized agent on wikipedia", also suggests a non-permitted role account "us" and "our", not to mention likely in failure of the username policy for [1] which shows Karyn Bryant as an apparent client on the about us page. Seems a clear conflict if interest issue. Additionally File:Karyn_Bryant_1324.jpg "has asked us, her e-business consultants, to use this particular photo, #1324, on her Wikipedia article." seems to be quite a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to address 82.7.40.7 concern's: I thought Wikipedia was about sharing accurate and factual information with the world. Although Karyn Bryant's article is not the one being questioned here, I'd like to state that I did not start nor write the content found within that article. I only corrected inaccurate information; information we can verify first hand. As for the photo, a photo did not exist on the page. Can you please explain how the contribution of a photo is considered a violation of Wikipedia's mission? Lastly, regarding this user account: Eckinc is only accessible by myself, Wade Eck, owner of ECKinc. Other members of my team do work with our client's, but I am solely responsible for any contributions made to Wikipedia using this name. In addition, the name Eckinc was deliberately chosen so that my contributions were transparent and not misleading. I only contribute information known to be factual and I make every effort to support Wikipedia's mission. Eckinc (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please don't remove other people's messages. I've restored what you removed. You've misunderstood if you think Wikipedia is solely about "sharing accurate and factual information". The first of Wikipedia's five pillars sums it up pretty well, most relevantly the final half of it, and I think you should respect that this might not be the place for you to promote your clients. As for the photo (this it getting somewhat off-topic but I figure I might as well reply), no-one has said it's not welcome only that there is processes that need to be followed in order to prove permission to release it under a free license. Sorry if you got the wrong impression, that was not my aim, but Wikipedia takes copyright-violations very seriously. --aktsu (t / c) 05:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your motivation maybe to show what you believe is accurate and factual information, but you apparently have a conflict of interest in the matter, so it is easy to question whether the only accurate and factual information you have interest in is that which promotes your client. The reference to the image was about the COI issue again, and the qutoe "to use this particular photo, #1324, on her Wikipedia article". This implies to me a view that your client somehow has some sort of control/say over the article - they don't. Regarding usernames the use of the term we and us certainly implies more than one user, as for transparency you say you are Wade Eck who in regards to Karyn Bryant you have said are "sole authorized agent" and "E-Business consultant" what you've failed to make clear is that you also declare yourself to be CEO of MMA H.E.A.T whilst Bryant is President of MMA H.E.A.T --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further on this I notice the article on Karyn Bryant lists the spouse as Wade. I assume that's you to? So I'm getting a bit lost here which of these are you? "Sole authorized agent on wikipedia", "E-Business consultant", Business Partner, Spouse or all of the above? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I'll comment, just to say that I do endorse Stifle's & SMarshall's arguments. (I wasn't planning to comment at all, but while I'm here I'll mention that to remove a deletion notice from an article and then claim that the close was invalid because the tag was not on the full time does not seem like a honest way of going about things.) DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Aktsu: I didn't just remove your comment, I also removed my comment, where I made an accusation towards you based on frustration. My intention was to right a wrong. @82.7.40.7: You seem to enjoy stating the obvious, as though you've made some amazing discovery. My only goal has been to contribute accurate information to Wikipedia. Clearly, many of you would rather discover the information on your own, rather than receiving it from the source. @DGG, I was never aware of all the Wikipedia formalities. I removed the notice b/c I thought it was simply added by some ignorant, high school kid. I never knew there was a forum of adminstrators that devote their lives to protecting the Wikipedia mission. To everyone: I believe Wikipedia is a great resource of information. That's why I had an interest in contributing to it. I have since learned many of you would prefer casual users, such as myself, to not contribute unless we're going to take the time to read the countless rules governing Wikipedia. Lastly, for those that still doubt the notablity of MMA H.E.A.T., two more celebrities and a Swedish fight team have recently discussed it on their high-traffic websites. These are in addition to the Frank Shamrock, Josh Barnett, Chuck Liddell, a Sports Illustrated writer, Pro MMA, Cage Divas, HDNet and iBN Sports references I've already provided.
- Lou Ferrigno talks about MMA H.E.A.T. : http://www.louferrigno.com/mmaheat.asp
- Corinne Van Ryck De Groot, undefeated professional boxer and NBC's American Gladiator, Panther, talks about MMA H.E.A.T. : http://www.corinnedegroot.com/media/documents/mma_heat.asp
- Team Wallin MMA : http://www.wallinmma.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62
- As we speak, MMA H.E.A.T. is filming exclusively at the world famous Gracie Academy. This evening, MMA H.E.A.T. will be interviewing the cast of "Law Abiding Citizen," including Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler. This will be my last post. I've referenced nearly a dozen high-profile sources, which should more than prove MMA H.E.A.T.'s notability. If the article is simply written poorly, I would have thought somebody would edit it. I guess deleting it is easier ...less work. Eckinc (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've made some great discovery, I am however pulling together the disparate and to my mind misleading representations made. I haven't seen you mention in this DRV that you are CEO of the organisation in question a clear conflict of interest. You've made representations about your relationship with Bryant, whilst omitting other significant facts regarding that relationship, again a huge conflict of interest. As to if we would discover the information on it's own rather than the source, then yes wikipedia's intent is to be based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. It's essential to maintain neutral point of view, rather than just the view the subject would like us to portray which would make us little more than a web host for the subject. The additional references you provide also don't meet the standard of the general notability guideline which you've been pointed to many times - none of these rise to the level of non-trivial coverage. They are unlikely to meet the standard of reliable sources and two of them have appeared in the last couple of days the Lou Ferrigno one even includes a nice ad in the side bar for none other than eckinc. The Corrine Van Ryck De Groot site also contains "Powered By ECKinc e-Business v3.0". I also can't find a way to navigate to that page from the front page of either site, though I haven't spent too long looking, both however do link ekcinc as partners. Guess that's just mere coincidence and I'm stating the obvious again. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty interesting how all those websites are in fact made by him, yeah. I don't think "celebrity endorsements" on any websites, especially not those operated by yourself, and saying "but or content is awesome!" is enough to rise above Wikipedia's notability requirements. --aktsu (t / c) 01:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone wanted notable citations, so I asked some of my Hollywood friends to provide some. Once again, I wasn't trying to hide anything, I know my logo and company name are listed throughout the sites. I was simply trying to accommodate your requests. Unfortunately, I can no longer refer to the original MMA H.E.A.T. article, but I can state with confidence that it was not written in a promotional manner. It merely stated facts. It listed the officers of the company, the goal of the company and content that has been covered. Very few if any adjectives were used. The last few days have definitely been a learning experience regarding Wikipedia rules, regulations and guidelines. Today MMA H.E.A.T. premiered it's new 1/2 hour show; we're already receiving great feedback. I have no doubt that someone will eventually rewrite the MMA H.E.A.T. article, eliminating the conflict of interest problem.
- Please close this debate and just delete the article. Being the company's CEO and now knowing Wikipedia's rules, I'm clearly never going to justify it's existence. You're free to move on to the next battle. Take care. Eckinc (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|