Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Series (2012)

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. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series (2012)

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

This yet to happen event fails the WP:NOT policy, it is sourced only to routine sports announcements none of which detail what will be the lasting significance of this event. It will be one of countless hundreds of televised and reported on sports events that take part on the last weekend of the year around the globe. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WWE PPVs are notable. A major event, especially as this is one of WWE's "big four" PPVs which will have lasting significance. – Richard BB 09:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this has been an annual event since 1988, will happen and is as notable as every single event that has already happened. MPJ -US 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the event will occur on 11/18/2012, an removing it now will be idiotic as it is mere days away. Bastista1 (talk)
Keep. Deleting and recreating in days is pointless. This is just as notable as the other Survivor Series. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every single professional wrestling event that happened before should be deleted if we follow your logic, which would merely be senseless. Bright Darkness (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there might be a question to the pointy nature of the nomination, the nomination is not without merit, passing the notability test does not mean the article should be included in the Encyclopaedia, if for example it fails the core WP:NOT policy, currently this event would appear to fail WP:NOT to quote "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. at the moment this is sourced to only just such sources so can some one please demonstrate that this event has received more than routine news reporting, otherwise it should be deleted or redirected until such time as it does. Mt king^(edits) 21:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 14. Snotbot t • c » 21:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as this event is set to take place in four days it seems kind of dumb to delete and recreate it in four days.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since AFD's last at least 7 days unless the article meets one of the speedy deletion criteria or a case of WP:SNOW the article won't be deleted until at least 3 days after the event. It seems to be pointless so I see little reason for this AFD to proceed. Also, even if this is not notable yet a the article could just as easily been redirected to the main Survivor Series article but at this stage that would not make sense either.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. A passive-aggressive nomination made just to exert power. This major pay-per-view is already significant and has been covered in myriad third party sources. أنا أحبك (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I pointed out in the comment above, the nomination is about WP:NOT and not notability, a subject can meet the notability requirements and still not make a suitable encyclopaedic article if it is excluded by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The section that is relevant "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and the statement that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", it goes on to say that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This is exactly what we have here, an analysis of the sources shows :

Tweet Survivor Series Theme Song (WWE Music Group @WWEMusic)
WWE Survivor Series
WWE Survivor Series presented by Kmart (Bankers Life Fieldhouse)
WWE
Team Co-Bro vs. 3M-B, (WWE)
Team Foley vs. Team Ziggler, (WWE)
World Heavyweight Champion Big Show vs. Sheamus, (WWE)
WWE Championship Triple Threat Match, (WWE)
Divas Champion Eve Torres vs. Kaitlyn, (WWE)
United States Champion Antonio Cesaro vs. R-Truth, (WWE)

All but 2 are from WWE, as well as not being independent of the subject, that are just announcements, one (no.1) is from Twitter (need I say more) and the other is from the venues website also not independent. A Google search turns up routine coverage consisting of reports on announcements about who is going to perform however they are mainly from non-reliable sources such as the Bleacher Report or "Camel Clutch Blog". So without anything showing more than routine reports or reviews this fails WP:NOT and should be deleted. Mt king^(edits) 08:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainly from non-reliable sources"... but does reliable coverage exist? 1, 2, 3, not to mention that the Background section can easily be pumped full of reliable sources.. like this? Starship.paint (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they are just routine coverage of the event announcements, none of them shows any analysis of the events lasting significance. Mt king^(edits) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying neutral on this, but I don't buy the "routine" argument. After all, any promotion for just about anything relating to media would be consider "routine". A review of a major book by the New York Times would be "routine", just like how promotion in Entertainment Weekly for a new TV series would be "routine". If you're going to apply a vague guideline so generally, then I hope you start targeting some of my cited examples. Coverage of the latest John Grisham novel in Publishers Weekly? If I applied your standard, it doesn't prove notability, it's just expected to happen. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Heartedly Keep Vjmlhds 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mtking. TBr and ley 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not voting one way or another on this one, at least not now—but I'd like to let everyone know there's actually a somewhat legitimate sports news source that's weighed in on Survivor Series. See this story from Grantland.com, which is hosted by ESPN. The piece is written by Grantland's regular wrestling columnist. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources can be improved but third party sources for wrestling PPVs tend be be easier to fins after the event happens. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do note that sources for wrestling are often impossible to find 3rd party due to the fact that as wrestling storylines can constantly change, the only sources that are reliable (until the event happens) are from WWE.com itself.Gorgak25 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone until after 00:00 PST, 19 November 2012. As the event is scheduled to occur tomorrow, I believe that the deletion should be put off until November 19. It is highly likely that there will be reliable sources after tomorrow. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there no pattern of recognizing that based on previous notability events will continue to be notable? Byuusetsu (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the hell? A MMA fan against Pro-Wrestling events? So, why don't he request to delete UFC 154? Onur T 02:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nominator appears just to be looking for something to nominate for deletion. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 03:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CRRaysHead90. All WWE PPVs have articles. United States Man (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your (three keep nominations above) reasoning is invalid. UFC 154 has reliable references, while the page at hand has primary sources from WWE, and Twitter? Twitter should not even be a reference and you need third-party sources. No wonder the nominator nominated this page. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See WP:PW/MOS#Sources for information. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a policy or guideline that states facebook and twitter can't be used as reliable sources. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WWE PPVs are notable. Final Flash (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want to delete this page, then you have to delete all WWE event pages, which is not only pointless but a waste of time too.
Strong keep Especially considering the event has now taken place. Though I fervently disagree with the nominator's reasons for suggesting deletion in the first place, the point is now entirely moot. ekedolphin (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a joke. JonnyBonesJones and MtKing are engaged in some edit warring and don't come off as particularly level-headed editors to me. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if this PPV was not as significant? It still took place, didn't it? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WWE PPVs are notable. DrachenFyre (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and strong keep as it's a waste of time and redundant to have this AfD... Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the event has now occurred.
Speedily Keep. If you check the user's page, you can see clearly he's a MMA fan. He also nominated to delete the following articles:

The fact that he's doing this to WWE articles and the fact he's being consistent with his actions, I say he's an overzealous deleter who has a particular dislike of the subject (WP:DLS) and/or trying to illustrate a point just to do so (WP:POINT). It also is one of WWE's biggest pay-per-views and is VERY noticable, so this whole process is completely pointless. For this, I say this should not be deleted. Quack! Quack! Looks like a duck to me Srsrox (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the other WWE PPV's have articles so why should this one be deleted? It's not like It's a one time PPV like Fatal Four Way, Survivor Series has been going for over 25 years and is one of WWE's main PPVs. Muur (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough, although some improvement is needed, but that's Wikipedia's lifestyle. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:46, 21 November 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.