Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Backlash

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 ding, ding, ding, keep all! - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Backlash

Also nominating:

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 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Bad-faith nominations. Theses are all annual PPV events from the largest pro wrestling company in the world. What's next, nominating every Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup article? TJ Spyke 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this same poster nominated WWE New Year's Revolution, and already it's obvious that the consensus is that WWE PPV's ARE notable. TJ Spyke 00:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Cups and SuperBowls are important achievements that are worth noting for the teams. A PPV is nowhere more special than a weekly show except for a different name, a different way of getting it and a slightly longer duration. --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Bad-faith nominations. No discussion was held to propose a deletion. All of these articles are from WP:PW and nominator made no attempt to initiate a discussion on the notability of the articles with project participants. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All nominator never discussed the notability of these articles anywhere, and nominated these even after seeing the consensus on the WWE New Year's Revolution page. Edgecution 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are basing your vote on that? --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing my vote on the fact that these artilces were nominated by a troll.-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I smell a personal attack? --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I smell retaliation for this? -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this because I see people have different opinions should all PPVs be deleted than just one. (Which was my original intention but I wanted to get others' opinion. I am sorry for not being clear about that at the start of that debate) --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what WP:PW is for, which you should know since you were a member until you removed your name recently. TJ Spyke 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They are annually occurring events. James Duggan 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I think it might be worth considering more carefully what you nominate. FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Baseless nomination on annually occuring PPV events. GShton 03:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All They deserve to stay, if World Cups and SuperBowls are important acheivements for teams then Wrestlemania, Summerslam, the Royal Rumble, and any PPV are important achievements for wrestlers. Adamaniac 11:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the unanimous Keep all votes above. --71.131.184.228 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the trolling nominator. — Moe 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nom. Possible WP:POINT violation given the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE New Year's Revolution. Resolute 06:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - stop these bad faith nominations. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the nominator does have a point, pay-per-views are one of the primary sources of revenue for most global scale wrestling companies. With that being said, there should be more focus on the financial aspects of the pay-per-views - the buyrate, the number of buys, the gross revenue, the attendance and locational issues. McPhail 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - So the stories are updated in each individuals profile. Do you think people have the time, or the inclination to go the profiles of each and every wrestler involved in a PPV. NO! That's why they go to WikiPedia the night of the PPV to follow things that happen if
- A) The PPV is nowhere near them.
- B) They're too poor to buy the PPV
- C) They don't HAVE PPV or the ability to watch the webcast

That's why you need a central location so people don't spend 3 hours trying to find something that can only take 3 seconds. John cena123 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - PPV's are an important aspect of the Professional Wrestling world. Most of the profit and revenue come from PPV's. Also, PPV's are important landmarks for the wrestlers themselves, and it should be all in one location, not in ever wrestler profile. 5aret 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all though I agree that these articles should be expanded beyond match results and summaries. --RoninBK_TCE# 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All This user is just being a pain, because he can't have his way. --Mikedk9109 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All There is NO reason to delete any of those pages. Cosmic Larva 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All -- FPAtl (holla) 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all im surprise he didnt go and try to put all the TNA ppv's up for deletion as well— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Standards (talk • contribs)
- This was from the talk page of this vote, so I moved it here. TJ Spyke 04:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All All ppvs are historical events in WWE history and should be kept. Ericmwallace 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per pretty much everybody before me. Jeff Silvers 05:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed now? It's seems pretty obvious that the result will be to keep, and the only person who wants to delete them is the nominator. TJ Spyke 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Removal of special editions of RAW is understandable, but removing PPV pages is totally unnecessary, especially considering there are unlisted PPVs. ABricker 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All There are important matches, storylines, and events that occur at a PPV. Ric Flair vs. Terry Funk in '89 is regarded as one of the best matches of these mens' career, and was exclusive to the Great American Bash, deletling it would be like trying to rewrite history and that's just censorship, which is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.33.4 (talk • contribs)
Keep All Alot of people use these pages if they missed the PPV's, including me.Freebird Jackson 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The PPV pages are helpful if you look back and see the old results. This is the only good site that has the PPV results. Not everyone can afford 40 dollars every once or twice a month for purchasing a PPV. Plus some people have worked hard to keep these pages updated.Jayorz12 03:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All These PPV pages are really useful because they give times, referees, interferances that you need to read throurly through on the WWE.com website to find. Also my work computer has WWE.com blocked, so I can use these to get updated live results if I can't see the PPV live. Also if you notice, on all these events it has were the up-coming 2006, 2007 and possibly 2008 event is going to take place which allows people to prepare to possibly go to the event which isn't broadcast easily on WWE.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.159.168 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Does it really fit with the goals of Wikipedia for it to be "the only good site that has the PPV results"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There's plenty of other things that it's not. Morgan Wick 06:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. --Oakster ^(Talk) 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Bad faith nominations. Clay4president 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All If you delete any of these pages, okay, say someone was doing a project on the history of WWE, where would they go? I did that project, and I got all my information from sites like these. How would you know who won the match at WWE Bad Blood 2004 between Chris Benoit and Kane? Exactly, you wouldn't, because WWE doesn't post them all the time. And plus, Wikipedia posts results at least 5 minutes before WWE.com even does. And it's their PPV! So I say, like most of the posts, thats just a Bad Faith Nomination. Budd16 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I don't see how you can nominate any annually held performance. Of course, I am biased, but how are some PPVs worth keeping and others worth deleting? Heaven forbid redundant information occur anywhere! In the meantime, Keep All annually occuring Pay-Per-Views.--The Saxon 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Annual Pay-Per-Views, are an immortalizing thing for a WWE Superstar, much like the SuperBowl is for American Football players or the Cricket & Soccer World Cup. If we lose information on them, we lose part of main stream WWE history, and history is what an encylopedia is supposed to help readers with. --The Legendary One 2:33 18 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: The Legendary One (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep All Theses are all annual PPV events from the largest pro wrestling company in the world. rwatson73 05:43, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
Keep All I think that the WWE is important for many people and all PPV records should be kept on Wikipedia. But maybe there is no need to include background info. Just include blah def blah 2006 or something. adeyinka 19:54, 18 October 2006 (AEST)
Speedy Keep Nominations are ridiculous and articles are clearly important Mattbwn 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Very notable T H L 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as these are definitely notable. --Myles Long 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All These PPV's are part of WWE's history and deleting them would be ridiculous.Jayorz12 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All all are notable PPV events. ALKIVAR™ 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All PPV's Notable, Keep All KingOfDX 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Bad Nomination, User is a [Troll] and this is notable worthy of their own articles, take your head out of your culo Overlordneo 06:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Trolling or not, let's all remain civil here. Throwing around insults isn't going to help anyone, and is arguably what a troll wants anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 19 October 2006 (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.