Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE New Year's Revolution

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE New Year's Revolution

Pure fancruft. Will consider removing other annual pay-per-views depending on the results of this debate. Aaru Bui ^DII 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fancruft. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, such stuff belongs on niche interest wikis. Sandstein 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC) No vote. On second thought, this does seem to be a big thing. I was too hasty, but there's just too much wrestling content of dubious notability on Wikipedia, and a clearer claim to notability would help (is anything on pay TV notable per se?) Sandstein 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We (the members of WP:PW are trying to keep rid of some of the less notable stuff, and things like the WWE Homecoming look like they will be deleted. TJ Spyke 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. This is an annual PPV from the biggest wrestling company still open. TJ Spyke 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An annual major event from a multi-billion dollar company that is shown on PPV. Why was this even nominated? Edgecution 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seriously, why is this even being nominated?!! This is a pay-per view put on annually by the largest pro wrestling promotion in North America. Every other annual pay-per view by the WWE has an article dedicated to it -- as they should. Stephen Day 18:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is this even an issue?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.49.123 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Unless you're planning on mass deleting some of the other yearly WWE events, this one stays like the rest of them. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Darren Jowalsen 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --

Oakster ^(Talk) 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• WTF? Keep Why is this nominated? — Moe 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Results of matches are unnecessary. Important storyline development and title changes are already recorded in the pages of the individual wrestlers and the championships. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're obviously horribly mistaken to what meets the criteria for deletion. I think it's obvious to everyone here that this is not going to be deleted. Unless you plan to delete every WWE pay-per-view, this has no merit for deletion. Really, deleting an active PPV from the most notable wrestling company on the Earth doesn't really fly here. — Moe 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do plan on deleting other pay-per-views. At least the card shouldn't be included in the article. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment PPV's are an annual occurance, so they should have their own article. I agree that results are not all that important, but there are other things that make it worthy enough for an article due to the annual nature of it. James Duggan 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• We are NOT getting rid of PPV articles Aaru Bui. The only reason we were putting the special episodes of RAW up for deletion was because they were only season premires and didn't warrent thier own articles. All PPV's by WWE are notable and should have articles. Your borderline WP:TROLL if you keep this disruptive behavior up. — Moe 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment without regards to the merits of this AfD. Wrestling is a topic whose inclusion limits are still being defined and are in fact being actively tested at the moment (as the above-mentioned season premieres). Just as that scrutiny is identifying topics on the deletion side of the acceptable threshhold, so too must it indentify topics on the other side of the threshhold. That doesn't mean that a nomination such as this, or active debate over it, is necessarily trolling or disruptive. The purpose of AfD is better articles and a better encyclopedia as a whole. Serpent's Choice 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is trolling when the obvious outcome is going to be Speedy Keep or Keep. It's like putting George W. Bush up for AFD and expecting it to be deleted, it ain't gonna happen. — Moe 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's an annual event, and a PPV to boot. James Duggan 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and reject the crusade foretold in nomination. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Like everyone else says, It's an annual event and a part of a WikiProject. John cena123 14:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Mikedk9109 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Per above reasons. ^---SilentRAGE! 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Kepp Per above--Unopeneddoor 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above THL 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Long Live The PPV KingOfDX 04:32, 19 October 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.