Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in WWE events

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in WWE events

2012 in WWE events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant information, as everything contained in this page also exists in individual articles.

This page appears to have been created because

• Keep- Annual event articles in notable sports are presumed notable, especially where not every event has demonstrated separate notability, currently not possible per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dru of Id (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your presumption of notability backed up by a policy? Could you clarify what you mean by referring to the "Crystal Ball" policy? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are future events scheduled whose notability cannot be established initially when the available info is some basic schedule of who, what, when, where. Such items can be included with proper referencing in an annual article, separating/splitting when a) notability for the event itself is clearly established by coverage in independent reliable sources with no financial interest, and b) overall length of the main article; if there are five events in the year, splitting out the title event makes the most sense, although it may not have as much coverage as an event on a holiday, involving a chance-of-a-lifetime public relations segment, or attended by glitterati. Dru of Id (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep- Its not going to be redundant once everything is merged also this ensures NOTHING is missing if a PPV is deleted for notability

Paul "The Wall" (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Once everything is merged", this article will be MORE redundant. Unless, of course, you are suggesting you intend to merge then delete standalone articles. Will you confirm or deny this is your intention? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've decided all of this should be merged without consensus. Do you intend to go through the 20-30 years' worth of older WWE/WWF/WCW/ECW PPVs and have them all merged into omnibuses also? –

BB 09:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I second (third?) clarification as to the ultimate aim of Paul "The Wall", as since this AfD has begun he has proposed merging ppv articles and again redirected to the 'omnibus' page, making it diffcult to

assume good faith, more so when further down this page he claimes to "have not touched ANY Wrestlemania" articles when he has, albeit in a minor capacity. BulbaThor (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, IF this article is used to SUPPLEMENT and SUMMARIZE existing content. Delete, IF disruptive mass efforts (especially by editors involved here) to redirect, merge or delete standalone PPV articles occur with the apparent intention of promoting this page (see Talk:2012 in UFC events for example). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirm delete vote This presumptive conclusion (along with the ones provided by nominator) strongly suggest there is a conflict of interest here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is seems all this user wants to do is merge ever WWE PPV that has taking place in 2012 into one page which he has created without even talking about it with the PW project.--Dcheagle | ^{Thunder Up} 05:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this page and keep the individual PPV pages. I'd say one notability is championship titles are almost always defended and/or change hands at PPVs. Also, WWE doesn't usually refer to the year something happened, say for instance in reference to a storyline, they usually refer to the individual event. Readers, especially pro wrestling fans, will search by event name and not so much by year. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't embrace an inclusionist philosophy, but this fellow is attempting to fold even a major pay-per-view event (Wrestlemania) into this omnibus he's created without so much as a word. Merits of a merger should at the least be discussed before initiating this change to presumptively "save" the info in the existing articles. It's also plausible that some of these shows could pass notability unto themselves case-by-case; rolling them into one without any attempt at discernment would be a premature action. Papacha (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a lie I have not touched ANY Wrestlemania at all Paul "The Wall" (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't cast aspersions anywhere; you clearly have, and your preemptive "this page will be removed shortly" edit histories and redirects without discussion are worrisome. Mentioning once everything is merged in the preceding text would also lends credence to a total overhaul. Papacha (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You have stated and I quote "but this fellow is attempting to fold even a major pay-per-view event (Wrestlemania)" That is UNTRUE. Wrestlemania will only be summarized in this article and kept separate. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hardly a lie or even untrue if you haven't even introduced the idea 'til this point, hitherto you infered "everything (will be) merged". But this is fruitless; it does nothing for the AfD and gets neither of us anywhere. Instead of arguing semantics with me would you please address the concerns raised by InedibleHulk, among others? Papacha (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a summary/list article. That would be consonant with Wikipedia policy on summaries and lists. Existence of the summary doesn't require deletion of individual articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe if this page is of any use it could just be a portal page. However if the general consensus is to still delete by all means delete it. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The page has seemingly been created in anticipation of a change in policy that has yet to be even proposed, never mind discussed. This, coupled with my comments further up the page and the volume of editing by the creator in the last few days compared to his recent history, lead to the conclusion that the article may have been created to make a
  WP:POINT with regards to similar articles elsewhere. BulbaThor (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To add to this comment, it's important to note that

BB 12:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Paul "The Wall" (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you genuinely wish to have the article deleted, it can be deleted under the G7 criteria of
    BB 15:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• hopefully the wrestling subject matter experts take heed to Paul the wall's warning. The current activity going on in the MMA realm is totally digusting. You have a handful of wiki-zealots with no knowledge of the subject matter totally reorganizing and redefining the importance of individual MMA events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.19.113 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This page isn't needed. Stay with the individual WWE Pay Per Views.--

talk) 08:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as a collection of information that exists in a sourced form on the individual Pay-Per-View supershow articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The page is more like a directory, and is unneeded -gtajaxoxo 05:25, 5 June 2012 (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.