Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Payback

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. J04n(talk page) 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Payback

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

This article fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. The only citation that does NOT fail the "Independent of the subject" criteria is the same citation they use for every event. In addition, the event described in the article has yet to occur so we do not have any indication any enduring notability this event may have therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL along with WP:NTEMP. It is to early to tell if this article will have any lasting significance. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on arguments posted here. Sorry, but this event is made by WWE and EVERY recent WWE pay-per-view has gained notability. If this event was cancelled, it would still be notable because that would be a major event cancelled since it's almost guaranteed to happen. There is plenty of sources covering this event:

I seriously could keep on going and if you need me to, I will. Notability is obviously there. So WP:GNG works for this article. WP:CRYSTAL works because the "event is notable and almost certain to take place". Since is has notability, WP:NTEMP is good too. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those websites offer up a name and a poster does not make this article relevant. All the websites you have listed are NOT "Independent of the subject". At this point no one can tell what lasting impact this event will have. It should be deleted and unlocked until after the event has passed to see if it has any lasting notability from sources that are independent of the subject. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are clearly covering the event with some of them explaining in detail about the event. These sources ARE independent of the source because they're not owned or affiliated with WWE (with the exception of WWE's website); they are not of "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases". They are independent sources covering wrestling. Also, it's a WWE pay-per-view... they have always had significant coverage for at least the past 20+ years. What proof do you have that this won't continue? The sources are already here covering it like they did with previous pay-per-view events. This deletion will not be upheld in the end because of WWE's press coverage. No sense in this process of deletion when it will only be recreated in a few weeks in the end. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 16:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may add WP:BURO, WP:5, and WP:IAR $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The event is guaranteed to happen in less than two months. All but one of those references are independent of the subject. The event is notable just the article needs to be expanded with the sources above. I do not know how you want a page unlocked Paul? I did not know it was locked. STATic message me! 16:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant locked. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent of the subject criteria, of course wrestling sites will have news on wrestling events. Just like NASCAR sites will have news on each NASCAR race but that does not make them both notable WP:SNOW is not a rule and WP:BURO, WP:5, WP:IAR could be pulled up for any deletion ever. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, NASCAR events are also notable if the racing websites are covering it. Your example, in fact, helps our argument. Show me a race that they have covered for NASCAR that Wikipedia does not have as an article. You see, all you're doing is talking and arguing with no proof and that doesn't fly here on Wikipedia. You need proof to counter-argue people with proof. Since you refuse to do so, this has become an obviously pointless argument. You won't even read the definition of what an independent source is. WP:SNOW trumps rules in many cases when the deletion is absolutely not going to hold up. This will not hold up due to the overwhelming proof here. And that I can promise. Textbook definition of WP:BURO. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is sourced, in the afd I can see more sources and it's a PPV event of the major promotion in the world. I think that it is notable enough--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep srsrox provided enough sources to cover WP:GNG. Actually I think WP:NTEMP works against this AfD... notability is not temporary, and enough sources have been provided to indicate notability. This is something that won't change.LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent of the subject criteria Paul "The Wall" (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want Rolling Stone or Fox News to cover it? Wrestling news sites report on wrestling, just like music news sites cover music. You seem to not understand what the phrase means, a reliable source counts as coverage. STATic message me! 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is a list of sources that are considered reliable for professional wrestling related articles. While it would be cool to have CNN cover every WWE, TNA, and ROH PPVs that just doesn't happen. But there are journalists who specifically cover pro wrestling exclusively who are credible, and are independent from the actual promotions. As stated before srsrox provided a list of sources and although they cover pro wrestling they are independent from the WWE company and there are other sources out there that haven't been posted yet.-LM2000 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, even if deleted it would be recreated the second a match was announced. So this would be deletes so that someone can feel like they "did something" which will last 3-4 weeks at most and then be back. Do we not have anything better to do that to delete articles for 3 weeks? MPJ -US 15:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree big time. I'm beginning to suspect the guy just wants to win (WP:WIN) an argument here since he won't even read and understand the definition of an independent source (WP:GNG, point #4). $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Even all of this aritcle's current data is copied from the Pro Wrestling Wikia's article of the same name, deleting the article here on Wikipedia will be of no use as the article will watsefully recreated when a match is announced for the event.Kyrios320 (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pro Wrestling Wiki article for Payback was created a day after this article was. They copied us, not the other way around.LM2000 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2013 (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.