Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA Weekly PPV

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 per WP:SNOW. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Weekly PPV

edit
TNA Weekly PPV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Being nominated for deletion as indiscriminate information. Weekly wrestling program results would seem to fall under the category of news reports, not encyclopedic content. Dsreyn (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was TNA Wrestling's main source of income. It is a valuable and important part of the company's history. They have released DVDs talking about these events. This is how TNA became a major wrestling company thanks to these events. This was not a weekly tv show. These ran live and were bought for 10 dollars each week.--WillC 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You say it wasn't a weekly show, but then in the next sentence you say it ran every week. So in other words, it wasn't a special once-per-year event like Wrestlemania, etc. - just a weekly event like Raw or Nitro, except you had to pay to watch it. And of course it was a major source of income. So should Wikipedia document every $10 sale at Wal-mart? After all, that's how Wal-mart makes their money. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will, your comment at WT:PW can be seen as canvassing. Please don't leave any more messages for anybody else, thanks! ayematthew ✡ 03:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was informing people of the delete discussion. I was not incenuating which way the vote should go. It was related to the wrestling project. All I said was it can be improved, which it can by the multiple sources at PWTorch and at Pro Wrestling History.com--WillC 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From WP:Canvassing, in the section about halfway down the page titled Votestacking: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. You alerted people to the AfD discussion on the pro wrestling project page; what effect on the discussion do you reasonably expect that to have? People who read the project page are obviously going to be hardcore pro wrestling enthusiasts, are they not? Are these individuals more likely to vote "keep" or "delete" when it comes to a wrestling-related page? And I don't think it's an accident that most of the people who have weighed in on the discussion since your alert was posted seem to contribute mostly to pro wrestling articles. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most or if not all delete dicussions that have to do with the Professional wrestling project are mentioned on that page. I in no way was going "hey we need to keep this page so everyone go vote keep". All I said was in can be improved. Which is not trying to turn the vote. A wrestling article being deleted should be known by the wrestling project which it belongs too.--WillC 10:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense since technically it was Impact before iMPACT was established.--SRX 00:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
No it wasn't. These shows had a basic formatting like Impact but was not free. These shows made TNA money. They had no house shows or DVDs until late 2004 and early 2005; house shows did not begin until 2006. They sold shirts on TNA Wrestling.com was the only other money coming in. These shows where the entire beginning of TNA. They cost 10 dollars a week and had the most memorable moments in TNA. With the beginning of titles and title changes. Based on if they are notable, it is damn sure. They fall under the same format that Television episodes of prime time tv shows do. They can't even be bought anymore or downloaded. Plus there is enough sources for all of them. Even if individual articles aren't notable, an article about the series of them sure is. This was TNA's only means of television. They had no other shows besides these. TNA continues to talk about them today and release dvds about the first ones. These are very important to history of TNA.--WillC 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they are notable because people paid money for it? These were basically like ROH events, except they were taped. These PPV's led to the creation of Impact after they began airing on local cable television markets, a small prose in the Impact article or in the TNA article will do good because this list is just WP:LISTCRUFT and it is not notable like WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results.--SRX 03:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree about about that results article. This was two years of history in TNA. What makes them less important than any other PPV article? They are carded just like these are. I don't see notablity in lets say Cyber Sunday. An interactive ppv which is not really choosen by the fans. That is trival as well. The only notbility in those articles are buyrates and title changes. TNA held Bound for Glory and Slammiversary before the monthly events were created. They named the aniversary weekly ppvs that aired Slammiversary and one in October by those titles, seeing from weekly PPV reviews from PWTorch.--WillC 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But change to describe how they ran, where they were held &c rather than just a list of cards. We don't keep Impact, Raw or Nitro results and these don't qualify as supercards. Tony2Times (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So if they weren't supercards, why are they notable? Just because the audience needed to pay for it? Maybe the reason they ran as PPV events was simply because they didn't get enough customers paying to see it live and needed to raise extra revenue. I don't see anything suggesting that these events were any more notable than weekly episodes of Monday Night Raw. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these events were supercards. Each week were highlighted by major title defences. These events were a contracted obligation between TNA and In Demand to run a certain amount of events. Spanning over two years before Fox Sports.net let them create Impact. The only reason they were stopped was to run monthly ppvs instead. Being a major part in the company's history is notable enough.--WillC 01:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Tony2Times. Almost all other wrestling programs (most notably Monday Night Raw, SmackDown, Impact, etc., but right down to WWF Jakked/Metal and WWE Confidential) have articles. Although this is not, in itself, a reason to keep the article, it certainly provides a template for reformatting this article. Simply put, the article should be kept because it was a major program run for an extended length of time by a major wrestling company. It has received coverage in both reliable web and print sources. I do think it should be moved to TNA Weekly Pay Per View (or perhaps with hyphens, as in Pay-Per-View), and I definitely think it needs to describe the show, the creation of the idea and reason for weekly shows, notable occurrences, and the reason for ending the weekly events (see http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/08/19/589855.html). A list of results for 111 weekly show results doesn't belong, but a revamped version of this article definitely does. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I agree with, but if no work is put into the article, it will end up here again.--SRX 16:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. But right now, the article is just a list of results - no introduction or explanation, or any assertion of notability (sorry, I just don't see how being a PPV automatically makes it notable; people pay to see house shows too, but weekly house show results don't seem notable either). A revamped article may indeed belong, but that's no reason to keep the current article; deleting the current one would not prevent someone from starting a completely new article. Note also that articles on other weekly shows like Raw and Nitro do not contain match results at all - except maybe mentioning specific, highly notable matches. Following the example set by articles on Raw and Nitro, a revised article should clearly consist almost entirely of text, without match by match results - so GaryColemanFan's argument seems like more of a reason to delete the current article and start fresh, rather than keep it. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just seems worthwhile to include. I don't have a great argument for it. How to reformat it or trim it, or rewrite it is another issue. But I think it's useful information that people are interested in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TNA_Weekly_PPV&oldid=1268097182"