Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. The Hybrid 00:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of effort has gone into the article, so I am a little conflicted. Maybe merging it with the main SNME page, I could probably find more sources. TJ Spyke 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "A lot of effort" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• KEEP - it's just like listing PPV results.--
  ^(talk) 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • But it isn't a PPV, so it doesn't posses the same notability. Being PPV does matter, since PPVs are used to bring storylines to a close, or to introduce some new steam to it, where as SNME is just used as an extra Raw, SD!, or ECW. It is just used to push them along like a weekly show, and weekly results murderously fail Wikipedia's notability policy. The Hybrid 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a deletion debate about PPV's a year ago and not one person voted delete (apart from the nominator). Davnel03 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree a PPV and occasional special are not one in the same, I'd suggest that many storylines have started (most notably the The Megapowers relationship) and have ended on SNME (Randy "Macho Man" Savage-George "The Animal" Steele feud). [[Briguy52748 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Answer me these two things: 1) Is it weekly? 2) Why all of a sudden is it up for AfD instead of when it was created 2 years ago?--
  ^(talk) 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Answer me this, if it is so notable, then why has it been unsourced for 2 years? How long it's been around is damning to your side, not helpful. If it hasn't been sourced in two years, then why should we believe that it will ever be? The Hybrid 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Hybrid above. Nikki311 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets Wiki guidelines for when lists should be included. Renee 01:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it fails
    Wikipedia:List guideline#Lists content due to its lack of sources. The Hybrid 01:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Sometimes policy can be ignored and this is one of those tomes.--
  ^(talk) 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So, you're rational for keeping it is
    WP:IAR? Good luck, The Hybrid 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Problem?--Monnitewars 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The admins will almost never buy that. I'm just saying, The Hybrid 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont know if i can do this or not but I support both sides, Keep and Delete. Keep because it is like a PPV event, but considering how WWE has recently taped many SNME's in one year, it should be considered almost like a weekly show (not exactly but similarly). But I choose to Delete because of WWE taping many of them in one year.--
  TrUcO9311 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, WWE has only done 2 per year since bringing it back (part of WWE's contract with NBC Universasl is that they get 2 primetime Saturday night specials per year, which is why NBC has to air them regardless of the ratings the previous ones got). This is less than previous years: they had 3 in 1985, 5 in 1986, 5 in 1987, 5 in 1988, 6 in 1989, 4 in 1990, 1 in 1991, 2 in 1992. They did 2 in 2006 and 2 this year, they will continue to do it twice per year until their current contract with NBC Universal expires (what happens after that will be up to the two companies). TJ Spyke 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My biggest criticism of the article is its lack of sources, but I think that adding sources makes more sense than deleting the article. It doesn't seem as though the show is being produced on a frequent basis, as there are four events listed in the past two years. Eventually, this could be split between the "old" SNEM and the "new" SNME to avoid making it too long. I've found some references and added them to the first couple of events, so it should be possible to get this sourced if it ends up being kept. GaryColemanFan 07:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing but cruft. No notable than any PPV article and lacks sources for specific matches. I would relate this to the deletions of "WWE Homecoming", "RAW Family Reunion", "Tribute to the Troops", etc (occasional hyped events).
  TB LS 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment, that comparison is pretty accurate. Nikki311 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. SNME has historically been on a par with PPV's, even above them at some periods. Bacchiad 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's trivial, unsourced and not that important for Wikipedia. As MITB stated: this is on the same level compared to other WWE specials. This article should be a redirect to the main SNME article. This is a television show, and isn't as notable as pay per view events. I might just make this article on a wrestling wiki, as that's the proper place for it. RobJ1981 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we make two articles, like garycoleman said, the old SNME (name it WWF Snme) and the new snme (WWE Snme) or something like that--

TrUcO9311 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment to RobJ1981: Actually, I suggest something to that effect below — creating a wrestling wiki (if one doesn't already exist) and transwiking this article there. [[Briguy52748 16:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Keep - Its a notable special show. It does need to be sourced, but that's easy to do. I also don't see why this should go, but Clash of the Champions would stay. - Eggy49er 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time right now, but when I get on later I will look that article over, and probably nominate it for deletion as well. The Hybrid 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment,
    Other articles existing is not a valid argument. Nikki311 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - Its more notable than a RAW, SmackDown or ECW, but its definitely not as notable as a PPV. Partly the reason why we deleted similar shows like RAW is Owen, WWE vs ECW Head to Head and WWE Homecoming and the rest of them. Davnel03 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometime I just think you nominate stuff cause your bored.--Monnitewars 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I'm not bored! I AFD pages, not for the fun of it, but because I don't think they are notable enough to seek inclusion in a encyclopedia. Davnel03 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs absolutely suck. If I wanted to do something painful to myself because I was bored, I would just cut myself rather than go through this emotional pain. The Hybrid 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is non notable in the area of this type of list. It also serves little purpose to debate the whole subject with the reasoning that it should stay because article "x" stayed. The quality of decision making on individual articles does not seem to give precedent much weight. --Stormbay 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it satifies notablity guidelines.--Monnitewars 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. The Hybrid 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prove it.--Monnitewars 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the burden of proof lies on a person adding something (or in this case keeping it)...not the person deleting it. Nikki311 02:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to modify my vote to KEEP AND SOURCE.--
            ^(talk) 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Delete I don't see the value in such an exhaustive list.
  Nosleep1234 22:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the very definition of listcruft. - fchd 08:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - SNME is no more or less important than a PPV (or than a weekly show like RAW, SmackDown! or ECW for that matter). The same things happen at all three types of events (PPVS, SNME, weekly shows) - title changes, storyline progressions, specialty matches, normal matches, pyro, guest appearances etc. I just really don't see how its different. It is not more notable than a PPV. The only difference between a PPV and any other televised WWE show is that you pay for PPVs. --Naha|^(talk) 14:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the only problem for failing lists is that it doesn't have sources, well that can be easily remedied. --Naha|^(talk) 14:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd debate that this event is less notable then a regular TV show or PPV, SNME occur 2 - 4 times a year and have only come back in the last year or so. --Endless Dan 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Listcruft, non-notable game. Keb25 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgive me, but did you actually read the article? Its not about a game. --Naha|^(talk) 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote either way, but if the result is delete, perhaps someone can transwiki this list to tviv.org. That said, perhaps a professional wrestling wiki might be a good idea. Also Keb25: Perhaps you meant to say, "non-notable event or wrestling program." [[Briguy52748 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Keep. Notable event. --Endless Dan 22:20, 12 October 2007 (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.