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 to say the least. That includes after sifting out all the knee-jerk emotional commentary from the retention side; in which afterwards I still could not find a consensus for deletion. –MuZemike 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Future event, not yet notable. Disputed PROD.  Chzz  ►  15:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Very notable its sourced no need to delete.--Steam Iron 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It'll happen in 7 weeks time! And if it doesn't happen, it'll be even more notable. Lugnuts (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Crystal ball isn't a reason to delete: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.55.24 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't overlook "if the event is notable" while focusing on "almost certain to take place". For notability to exist, there must exist significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For my part, I am looking for notability. Well promoted does not qualify. My76Strat 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. There is substantial news coverage on the series and plenty of reliable sources on the web. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep- Meets exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mega Keep- It's a future event that will happen. Plus, the WWE is already doing early promotion of the event.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can any of you explain how it meets notability requirements - are there any independent, reliable sources?  Chzz  ►  19:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this event will certainly happen. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultra Super Mega Keep You go to WWE.com Chzz you will see that this event will take place and buddy your getting into a battle you can't win if your trying to delete this by yourself.--Nascarking 02:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless one of you keep voters can find some significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie, not links to the WWE), then this future event hasn't risen to the level of notability required. Most of the previous !votes are grounded in WP:ILIKEIT rather than in policy or guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is ridiculous. I've seen WWE PPV's that have pages at least 2 months in advance on here and it's never been a problem with them so what's wrong with this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that, like every article, this one needs to meet the general notability guideline by having coverage in sources that are unrelated to the subject. All of the references in this article are to the WWE's own websites, which are primary sources. Neither the nominator nor myself have been able to find secondary sources, which is what every article needs. Thats why the nominator and myself think the article should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe if you would look at the page you would see there are other sources not just from wwe.com--Steam Iron 12:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. One to the PPV channel you can buy it from, one to the arena where its happening. Whilst the Fanhouse reference may be to a reliable source, none of the other ones meet that requirement. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote Let's put this to a vote and end this stupid discussion now. This shouldn't have been put up for deletion in the 1st place, because the events gain more information over time and more sources to back them up. Lets vote so we can get back to doing real work.--Nascarking 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is keep and it seems overwhelmingly clear that keep is superior to delete in this discussion but that's just me. Your thoughts?--Nascarking 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not getting a vote, mate.  f o x  23:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a discussion, not a vote. In closing it, an administrator will evaluate the policy- and guideline-based arguments presented here.

• I like it is not a good argument.
• The existence of other articles does not necessarily mean this one should exist.

In the nomination, I mentioned WP:CRYSTAL, and several people have pointed to 'exception 1'. Yes, indeed, we can have articles on future events, as long as they are notable. The point of 'Crystal' is, we cannot predict future notability. Saying that 'Of course it will happen, of course it will be notable' does not help, right now. We can only view the current situation.

Self-published sources - ie the websites of the event, the ticket-sellers, etc - may be used for simple, neutral facts, but that does not help show why the event is notable. Coverage of the series, on the web, does not help either. Notability is not inherited. Is this specific event notable?

Please, stick to policy-based arguments; if you can show why this event is, right now, notable - through significant coverage in independent reliable sources - then, fine, great; please show the links, and we can keep it. Chzz  ►  01:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stong Keep My dear Chzz, I think you made that issue into your personal vendetta. You need independent sources? Well, the American Airlines Arena has it in its schedule, inDemand offers it for purchase, ticketmaster is selling tickets since June - all of them non-WWE sources. What else do you need? Would you like the White House to confirm it? Or FoxNews? With your line of argument, there shouldn't be a wikipedia-entry for the next SuperBowl as well. Simply ridiculous. Blocpark (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please keep discussion focused on the article, see WP:AFDEQ, particularly bullet #3. The comparison to the SuperBowl isn't valid, the closest WWE equivalent of the SuperBowl is WrestleMania. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the WWE sources are barely enough for a keep. In the future, editors should wait for secondary source coverage of the event to be posted. Normally, this kind of coverage only starts after the previous pay-per-view event is done, when WWE starts promoting the next event. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Chzz, AmericanAirlines Arena has it listed on its homepage, and on their events calender. Ticketmaster lists it here, and here. If you won't believe that these sites are telling the truth then I don't know what to tell you because AmericanAirlines Arena is NOT I repeat NOT Affiliated in any way with WWE, they're just hosting the event. Ticketmaster is just selling tickets for the event like they do for any event.--Nascarking 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jtalledo, Ticketmaster has been selling tickets for this event since June which is 5 months before the event and this is an event that has taken place since 1987 so we already know whats going on and what sources to look for before you guys do.--Nascarking 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing Chzz if we did delete the article, me, Dcheagle, or 3bulletproof16 would just bring it back up in 2 or 3 weeks since that's when information about this event start to really roll in from WWE.com. Why delete the article if me or one of the other members of wikiwrestling would bring it back up in the near future?--Nascarking 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The venue listing it in their calender, and companies selling tickets, and so on, is of course not independent.

Nascarking, yes, I'm sure that - once there is appropriate coverage - we could have an article. Not a problem. The point is, if there is no such coverage yet, we should not have the article yet.

If deleted, you can get a copy in userspace, add referenced facts, and move it back - I will not object at all; I fully support us having articles on absolutely anything that is notable. Currently - this event isn't.

My understanding of WP:V and WP:N is that we only have articles on things which have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If I am wrong in that opinion, then this will be kept, and I'll certainly change my viewpoint; I'm always quite happy to be corrected. Frankly, right now, I'm wondering if perhaps I do have it all wrong; I see here that lots of quite experienced editors are claiming we should keep the article, despite their being no independent references. So, if I am misunderstanding things totally, then I'm sorry, and I hope I can try to understand why this should be kept. If anyone can explain to me which policies or guidelines say we should keep it, I would honestly be grateful.

I thought this AFD would be really simple. That's why my reasoning, up top, was so short. 'Future event, not yet notable'. That's all I can see, really. I'm sure we all accept that, for something to be 'notable' in Wikipedia, it needs independent coverage. I can't find that. Are we really saying that, because people are selling tickets, it has significant coverage? I really don't understand.  Chzz  ►  05:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, would you explain to me in your interpretation how AmericanAirlines Arena (which I will remind you is NOT I repeat NOT AFFILIATED in any manner with World Wrestling Entertainment), or Ticketmaster.com (which is also NOT I repeat NOT AFFILIATED with WWE) is not a independent source? Because you said and I quote "The venue (AmericanAirlines Arena) listing it in their calender, and companies (Ticketmaster) selling tickets, and so on, is of course not independent." your words not mine. I don't understand how they couldn't be, there has been information about this event since February when it was announced Survivor Series was originally announced it wasn't going to occur this year until WWE decided to add it back to the PPV lineup back in June.--Nascarking 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand things, AAA are selling tickets to this event. They have a vested interest in the promotion of the event. Simply put, is in their interests to gain greater promotion of the event; they stand to gain from it. That is what I mean by 'of course not independent'. I hope that clarifies. Best,  Chzz  ►  03:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the grounds of CRYSTAL; this is a future event and a commercial pay-per-view venture. An article before it happens constitutes promotion, in my view. After it happens it becomes a potential topic for inclusion, based upon general notability guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Chzz can we just drop this whole stupid pointless discussion I mean me or another member of my wikiproject are just gonna bring this back up in 3 weeks so this pointless to delete this. I just want this pointless debate on a deletion to end.--Nascarking 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There has been no significant coverage (see WP:Significant coverage) in newspapers, magazines, books, scholarly articles, broadcast news; no coverage in reliable sources (see WP:Reliable sources) which are financially and editorially independent of the event and the WWE. The arena may indeed report on scheduled events, ticket sales, past events, but it is not financially independent of the event, and has no editorial policy nor fact-checking as do reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, and in that light cannot be used to publicize events. Notability is not temporary - once this event is over, it's unlikely to matter to anyone outside of the wrestling fan community, and will not merit a standalone article. Other articles with similar problems exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) but we're only talking about this article in isolation. When the article is brought back up in "3 weeks" it's going to be re-nominated for all the very same reasons. Because this is a one-off event, it is unlikely to meet standards for notability spelled out in WP:Notability (events). Though notability requirements are not met for this as a standalone article, it may meet requirements for inclusion in an article which includes an overview of 2010 WWE-related tours. For further information about arguments to avoid in discussions like this, see WP:Arguments to avoid.--Lexein (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein you obviously don't know anything about Wrestling PPV history, our articles have long merited being standalone articles. 7 of our articles are Featured Articles and 67 Good Articles. So for you to say it doesn't matter to anyone other than us is a grouse exaggeration and not true. And another thing, there has been enough coverage of this since February. WWE had originally intended not to have this event take place but in June decided to put Survivor Series back on the PPV lineup. Until you can disprove to me on here and not with Wiki Policies and that crap, prove to me how American Airlines Arena (which I will AGAIN remind you AGAIN that it is NOT I AGAIN repeat NOT AFFILIATED with WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT W W E) (The arena which is owned by the city of Miami) (AND PLAYS HOST TO THE MIAMI HEAT) (HOW MUCH MORE SIMPLER THAN THAT CAN I MAKE IT), HOW IT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE Frigging event on its list of events. HOW HOW HOW IS IT NOT!!!--Nascarking 01:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shout. The fact that the AAA link has a large button to 'buy tickets' hints at its lack of independence. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(No need to shout - see Articles for deletion etiquette and especially Civil behavior). "Wiki Policies and that crap" are how we express the consensus-reached community choices of what's in and what's out, and what's best practice, at Wikipedia. Requested detailed explanation follows: I never said the arena was "affiliated", I said the arena isn't independent. To specifically answer your question: the arena is not, and cannot be, financially independent from any event which it is paid to host. As long as the arena is paid to host the event, it is not financially independent. Therefore the arena isn't generally independent about this event, therefore cannot be arbitrarily considered an independent reliable source for the purposes of article notability. Here at Wikipedia, notability is determined by independent reliable sources. Note that I'm not saying the arena shouldn't be used as a source, but it necessarily gets less weight than a newspaper (even newspaper blog), magazine, book, scholarly paper, etc. Since you bring up featured articles, if you look at others, you'll see that they all use verifiable (see WP:Verifiability), solidly independent reliable sources, with full editorial and financial independence. FA might use a primary or non-independent source once in a while, but the independent sources are there in abundance. In case anyone wonders, I'm using (see xxx), so that the wikilinks aren't ignored. Oh, and here's a great essay: WP:Independent sources. --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate if I've answered your above question satisfactorily. --Lexein (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good god just delete the damn thing so we can all move on to something better like improving articles which is what we are doing here. Someone from WP:PW will recreate the damn thing in a few weeks ether way.--Steam Iron 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pointless to have the article deleted. Would you all be satisfied with a redirect to the Main Survivor Series Article until the event is like a few weeks out so we can end this pointless debate?--Nascarking 02:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein you didn't answer my question, would you be satisfied with a redirect instead of deleting the article. That way everything would still be there in 2 or 3 weeks so we don't have to start whole article from scratch again? Because that's what we typically do with the articles before the events. Create them 4 to 5 months before then redirect them to the appropriate article until 2 months before the event when we take off the redirect.--Nascarking 04:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein you, Chzz or anyone who wants this article gone even though it's gonna be brought back up in 2 or 3 weeks should answer this question. Why do it even though it's gonna be brought back in 2 or 3 weeks. Which makes this deletion debate pointless. If this were 2 or 3 months away, your point on deletion might make more sense but just a little more than a month away from the event makes absolutely no sense.--Nascarking 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An alternative question would be - Why, without any reliable sources to back it up, do people create these articles in the first place. What's the rush? Just because you like it doesn't mean that our guidelines should be broken to have an article right this minute. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We create the articles a few months ahead of time and then redirect them to the appropriate article until 2 or 3 months away from the event and we do to have sources. They usually don't start saying anything until the 1st match leading up to the PPV event has been announced usually on Monday Night Raw. We have a whole list of our sources on our WikiProject.--Nascarking 19:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just drop this whole thing Please? It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are in a stalemate and are just fighting instead of working on a compromise. I'd more than settle for a redirect to Survivor Series at this point but this is beyond ridiculous. We have been at this debate for 5 days and haven't gotten anywhere. Can we agree to drop this whole stalemated debate and end this, both sides are not making progress.--Nascarking 19:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright since no one has responded to any of my recent comments I'll assume that dropping this is out. But I'm willing to agree to a compromise. Would you all agree to a redirect because I have absolutely no problem redirecting the page for 2 weeks as long as it's redirected to Survivor Series or List of WWE pay-per-view events. Would that work for you guys instead of just deleting the article?--Nascarking 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the PPV is next month and is already scheduled to take place. There is already a poster for the event. Why wouldn't you keep it?—User:Zsmalls629, 8 October 2010

That's what I've been saying for half this debate.--Nascarking 20:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Why wouldn't you keep it?" is asked. Answers: (1) Because it is a future event and encyclopedias describe what has happened in the past rather than predicting what will be happening in the future; (2) Because it is a commercial event and the promotion of WWE Pay-Per-View events is not part of Wikipedia's job description. Quite the opposite, it is offensive to many Wikipedians, such as myself; (3) Because the future event is not documented by independent sourcing, only by promotional hype and reprinted press releases. Yes, this discussion was long and pointless, and I don't think anybody is arguing that a FUTURE article on the COMPLETED event is out of line, only that articles like this should be done after the fact, not before it. Hopefully these concerns will be taken into consideration with respect to future WWE event-articles. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.

Comment. Super Bowl XLV and XLVI have already been created. So has UFC 122 through 127. All of these events are months to two years in advance. It would follow that these events fall under first exemption listed here. The Survivor Series is not only one of the four original WWE PPV events, making it just as notable as WrestleMania, it may also be the last one ever held. Would it be unreasonable to assume that the event also meets this criteria? A cursory search also shows several independent sources for the event which pass WP:RS: here from the Bleacher Report, here and here from InsidePulse.com, here from SportsNewsandScores.com, and here from Sescoops.com. 72.74.226.41 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (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.