Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Raw 25 Years

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. Nearly all delete opinions were fully rebutted successfully. I will reverse the close if anyone feels like there is a need for more discussion but I see no clear reason to do anything other than keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw 25 Years[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although the page is heavily sourced all of the sourcing is WP:ROUTINE and nothing is WP:LASTING. All relevant information is already included at List of WWE Raw special episodes. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes. The article uses the template for pay-per-view events but it becomes clear that something ain't right as you read through it. For example, the event ended with a brawl that built towards an actual PPV that would take place six days later. Sure, legends appeared, and it was (barely) broadcast from two different arenas, but at the end of the day this was just an episode of Raw. It's a milestone for WWE Raw to have remained on the air for a quarter century but the episode that celebrated that achievement doesn't inherit that notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Sources are WP:ROUTINE match results and don't push this past the WP:GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claiming that the sources are simply routine match results is disingenuous at best. The sources include a discussion in PWInsider three months in advance, as well as stories about the upcoming event in Mirror.uk and the Denver Post. There are discussions of the ratings in WrestleView and Figure Four Online. There are reviews and analyses in Pro Wrestling Torch, ESPN, Deadspin, and Mirror.co.uk. This is in addition to the recaps, which include such sites as CBS Sports. There is clear notability demonstrated for this event, at a level far beyond simply reporting routine results. A quick Google search also reveals discussions on Forbes, Cleveland.com, Sports Illustrated, NESN, Thesun.co.uk, Rolling Stone, Canadian Online Explorer, and many, many more. Even the DVD is in the top 100 sports DVDs on Amazon.com. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the sources you mentioned are listed at WP:PW/RS as not reliable. In addition all of these "analysis" you are mentioning is done for every episode of Raw, so what makes this episode more notable than any other? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where WP:PW chooses to place the sources on their lists is irrelevant--the project has a history of overcompensating due to insecurity about the subject matter on which they write. The only three sources (not many--three) listed as unreliable are the Daily Mirror, The Sun and Forbes. While the Daily Mirror and The Sun may sensationalize news, they also provide good coverage of professional wrestling. Their wrestling coverage should be considered separately from the site in general, as the tone and reporting style is quite different. The Forbes stories (five of them) come from three different authors--one with a business economics degree who also hosts a podcast that has had numerous WWE stars as guests, one is a former lawyer who has published a book and also contributes to ESPN, and one with a journalism degree who has written for a sports newspaper. Since the guidelines on Forbes say to consider the writers as potentially self-published sources, I would say that they actually stack up pretty well. Even without these sources, however, there is more than enough to assert notability. If there are this many reliable sources about an event, the important consideration is GNG, not every other episode of Raw. In reality, if there is sufficient coverage in independent mainstream sources, every episode of Raw could get an article. This is the case with many shows. You have not established why Raw (and, in particular, a special episode of Raw with over two dozen reliable sources available that discuss it in detail--not passing mentions, and I acknowledge that not all of these sources are currently included in the article) should not have its own article. I have proven GNG. You are relying on "moving goalposts." Based on those considerations, the article should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not as notable as Raw 1000 it still passes the test of notability as again the sources are not "routine". The notes by GaryColemanFan of independent mainstream coverage bears this out. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or eventually redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes. Notability is not met for a stand alone article on this. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am of the opinion that this is somewhere in the grey - I see enough reasons to both, keep this article, as well as delete it. I do think that it might be prudent to perhaps add some more information such as background of the event. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per coverage from CBS, Sky Sports, Variety, Times of India, Deadspin, Vice and more. Needs cleanup as it was under a WP:REFBOMBING. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2018 (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.