Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 professional wrestling television ratings


 * 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 delete. Proto  ►  00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 professional wrestling television ratings

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn/or list, unencyclopedic and only of interest to big wrestling fans. The page for 2007 WSX television ratings has been deleted, and TNA/WWE have their own ratings pages already (which probably should also be deleted). Booshakla 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep ratings are important for any tv-shows but even more so for continously live events. Bad ratings may result in a sudden change in storyline for example. It is also interesting to see how competing products are doing week for week.Ondbraddod 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep. Ratings are still important. I suggest that we either keep this paticular page, or delete the seperate pages with ratings on them(TNA/WWE Ratings for 2007).
 * Strong Keep, mostly on the basis that there's no reason to delete, and that, in the realm of professional wrestling (especially after the 1990s), ratings are very encyclopedic. I do agree, though, that the WWE/TNA articles are now redundant with the creation of this article.  I propose redirecting those to this one. Jeff Silvers 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing my suggestion to redirect the WWE/TNA articles to 2007 professional wrestling television ratings. The WWE article also contains ratings for other WWE programs that are minor enough to warrant exclusion from this article but important enough to be noted in a WWE-centric article.  The TNA article does this to a much lesser extent (having an "other" category), and could probably be redirected here. Jeff Silvers 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is a bunch of stats encyclopedic or fancruft?--Dacium 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" See WP:NOT. This qualifies as "an indiscriminate collection of information" in my opinion -Selket Talk 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this short television rating article should be included in a short paragraph, in the WWE article. Has no notability on its own unless it received the best rating of the year or something like that. See WP:NOTE. -- [|.K.Z|]  [|.Z.K|]   07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  08:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete trivia Ulysses Zagreb 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The ratings were very important way back during the Monday Night Wars.  They're really not so now.  --UsaSatsui 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic. Xiner (talk, email) 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep perhaps a relatively esoteric article, but by no means unencyclopedic or non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly transwiki to Wikisource Some of the notes above refer to WP:NOT. However, note that this policy section does not apply to problems involving "trivia". In fact, an attempt to add a section for "almanac style information" (which this article is) to WP:NOT#IINFO failed last year due to lack of consensus. Thus arguments specifically using WP:NOT#IINFO should be considered an invalid use of that particular part of policy.
 * Now that all being said, the article does suffer from a couple of issues. First, the article appears to use original research in attempting to analyze the ratings, such as in the Notes section.  This is presumably included to attempt to place some meaning on the raw ratings data and explain possible reasons for various highs and lows.  Unfortunately, such original analysis of data isn't allowed since it is simply a form of original research.  In order to keep those sorts of comments in the article, they would have to be properly cited.  Second, it's not clear that any attempt is made in the article to assert that this information is somehow notable.  In order to assert notability, the information in the article needs to be the subject of multiple non-trivial references about it.  In this context, non-trivial means that it can't simply be a weekly data dump of ratings numbers, but has to be an actual discussion or analysis of these ratings.
 * So all in all the article should probably be deleted unless it can be made into an actual article with referenced context and analysis beyond just the raw numbers, and without resorting to original analysis and research (ie the analysis should have been published somewhere else). If deleted, I might be ok with the verifiable data itself being included in Wikisource, since Wikisource is specifically intended to provide publicly avaiable raw data sources of various types.  Thus this might be a bad article, but it might be an ok set of data points for Wikisource.  Dugwiki 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, since this is a pretty interesting topic, I'll mention that I do think it's theoretically possible to have articles about television ratings in general. Television critics and the industry frequently publish analysis of the broad ratings for various weeks and quarters and seasons, and this information is extremely important to people in the industry and of interest to many television watchers.  For example, I bet you could make a decent article entitled "2006 television ratings" that accumlates newspaper articles and interviews to analyze various aspects of the 2006 ratings period, such as notable highs and lows, possible ratings trends and analysis of reasons for major ratings changes, etc.  I could probably support THAT kind of ratings article.  The article in THIS afd, though, unfortunately doesn't reach that level. Dugwiki 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Ratings are good to compare and show if there has been a decline or a rise in a certain promotion or show. Also WSX no longer has a page on its ratings so this is good for someone who wants to know wrestling ratings without going to pop-up filled websites. Bencey 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even assuming you're right that some readers might be interested in this info, that doesn't address the issues of original research and references, and the article doesn't present references to verify that the analysis of the data has been notably handled in publications. The article needs to take care of those problems before I could recommend a keep. Dugwiki 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as trivia and unencyclopedic, per Selket. Reywas92 Talk 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep for now Rating information has relevance whether or not it is your cup of tea. The question is one of sourcing.  I'd say give time to provide a source. Bbagot 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.118.184 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * 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.