Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle by the Bay

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 all. Mangojuice^talk 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle by the Bay

nn wrestling show, not a pay-per-view, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ECW_Born_To_Be_Wired for precedent. Renosecond 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also nn AWA show/programs/events:

• Brawl in St. Paul
• Rage in a Cage
• Rage in a Cage 2
• SuperSunday
• Twin Wars '90
• War in the Windy City
• World Tag Team Tournament
• WrestleRock '86

(Note: I had recently merged the various SuperClash events into a single article, but only one was a PPV as far as I know, but I will keep them off this debate for the time being.) Renosecond 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all articles together into a list (perhaps List of American Wrestling Association shows?), as they aren't notable enough to merit seperate articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, listcruft. - Chadbryant 01:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Listcruft? None of the above articles are lists.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry about the confusing statement, let me clarify: Wikipedia:Listcruft is only an essay (not a policy or guideline) on a very broad term, thus (IMO) it shouldn't be cited as the sole reason for the deletion of an article.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge All per comment above. -AMK152 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is listcruft, they are all listings of matches. And what is up with all the merge votes, there is nothing exsisting to merge to, and I'd like you all to check the precedent above for ECW shows, those were deleted and these shows are no more notable than those. Renosecond 03:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Note that merging does not always have to be between two articles that already exist, since in some occasions, multiple related articles can be merged as well into an entirely new article.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see these as being notable enough to be in a serious encyclopedia. Akradecki 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Although I could see an argument being made for merge. Jcam 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. RobJ1981 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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.