Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016)


 * 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. Presumably they will be recreated when more sourcing becomes available, but for now the consensus is not to have an article. MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE Roadblock (December 2016)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable event lacking non-trivial support. red dogsix (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I vote to NOT delete it because the event was just confirmed a few days ago. Just as every other WWE pay-per-view event has its own page, there is no reason why this too should not have its own page. The closer we get to the event, the more references and articles will be added to it. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all three – AFAIK, the idea of brand-exclusive PPVs is still complete speculation. Apart from renaming Night of Champions to Clash of Champions, there is no confirmation of any change from the WWE. Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even online ticket websites are putting up sales for the events, it's confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfG&P (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ticketmaster aren't selling any tickets to any PPVs beyond Clash of Champions. Is there something you know that the WWE's official ticketing partner doesn't? Sceptre (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all three - There is nothing anywhere confirming these events from WWE, the arenas, or Ticketmaster. This is only speculation and has no reliable sources to support it. JTP  ( talk ) 17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The ppv schedule is legitimate. Here you go: http://pwinsider.com/article/102934/the-brand-extension-means-new-ppvs-for-wwe-full-revised-schedule-of-events-through-2016.html PWInsider has confirmed it and so has Sky TV in Italy, WWE's ppv distributor in Italy. PWInsider is listed as a verified source and is one of the most respected wrestling sites out there. That's all the proof you need. You can delete the pages if you want to, but they're only going to be put back up. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, that very, very brief listing is not all the proof that is needed. There needs to be be independent, verifiable references that support the article.  The current support is trivial in nature and does not meet what is needed to be included in Wikipedia.  Also, saying that page can be deleted, but will just be recreated does not help you cause and is taken as a threat that you will not abide by Wikipedia guidelines.  That statement does not help your cause. I suggest you concentrate on finding better references and add those to the article.  red dogsix (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there's nothing on the Sky Italia website to suggest the three nominated PPVs are happening. We're also ignoring the verifiable Sky Sports UK sources that TLC is taking place on December 18 in favour of a claim it's taking place on December 4 according to a mythical Sky Italia source that we can't verify. Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Independent coverage from multiple reliable sources--Pro Wrestling Torch, Canoe.ca, Prowrestling.net...what's the problem here? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem here is some people do not understand how WWE's ppv pages work. When an event is first announced months in advance, there will not be that many references for it yet. As we get closer to the event date, there will be plenty of more notable references available. That is why I said if these pages are deleted now, they will just be created again as we get closer to the events. This is how ppv event pages have worked for years. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "There will not be that many references for it yet". So basically you're saying that they're not notable. Wrestling booking is famously in a state of flux, as evidenced in the past week where the original plan to have the Roman Reigns hold the belt until SummerSlam had to be aborted because the he failed the Wellness Policy. Until we get confirmation that events are happening directly from the WWE or their broadcast/ticketing partners, saying that events are happening are pure speculation. Once you get to the fifth report that Finn Balor is coming up to the main roster Any Day Now, you remember that smark blogs often don't know shit. Sceptre (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I should quote directly from WP:CRYSTAL: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.". A smark blog quoting a mythical, inaccessible Sky Italia source is not "well documented" by any stretch of the imagination. Sceptre (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Digging even further into this, I note that PWI weren't provided the list by Sky Italia, but by a third party who runs his own wrestling smark blog which doesn't even mention the supposed upcoming events either. Sceptre (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment A couple of things. First, PWInsider.com is not a "Smark" blog. Second, these shows ARE notable because there's already a source confirming it here: http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=102934 and I will add a second source confirming it here: http://www.f4wonline.com/daily-updates/daily-update-wwe-split-brand-ppvs-roh-ppv-aries-joe-and-nakamura-debut-215206 PWInsider and the Wrestling Observer are the 2 most respected wrestling news sites in the world. Furthermore, Dave Meltzer reported on the PPV schedule change in the Observer Newsletter days before PWInsider posted their article. Also, when the schedule was first announced, sites like Ticketmaster were still advertising Night Of Champions and not Clash Of Champions. It wasn't until after the new schedule was reported that Night Of Champions was changed to Clash Of Champions on Ticketmaster. So the schedule that was reported by Meltzer and PWInsider was correct about the Night Of Champions name change, but you're saying they are not right about the rest of the schedule. The second link I posted also makes no mention of Sky Italy, so that means Dave himself independently confirmed the story with WWE. And if this schedule were in fact not true, then WWE themselves would have denied it, just like the story about Kurt Angle coming back to WWE floated around this past week and WWE shot down the story. WWE themselves can't confirm any of these shows yet until they do the draft episode on July 19th because it would give away their storylines. Here's the bottom line, PWInsider.com and WrestlingObserver.com are used as legitimate official sources all over WP. Do we now go to each and every wrestling-related page that uses those sites as sources and remove all of those references because you feel they're "Smark" blogs? OldSkool01 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't have the faintest idea how Wikipedia actually works if you think "it must be true because it hasn't been confirmed as false" passes our standards for verifiability. Indeed, if this is how wrestling articles work, then there is clearly a lot of work to be done to overhaul the entire set. In the case of PWI, there is no way that it passes as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes if it's reporting as fact that WWE have taken certain corporate decisions based on what some self-employed blogger with no affiliations to Sky Italia or the WWE has said to them (and incidentally, I find any website that displays spam ads to an adblock user to be very skeevy). In the case of Meltzer, I would be more likely to accept him as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes (because he's very often right and his network of backstage sources is legendary), but you know as well as I do that he admits his own limitations as a journalist for a form of entertainment that still has a deep affection for its insular carnival roots, and recognises that certain corporate or booking decisions are always subject to change at a later point. Note that he says there are apparently going to be these PPVs, not that they will definitely happen. Even so, there are limitations even if we accept Meltzer as a reliable source; for example, we can't really use him as a source for the WWE calendar per WP:CRYSTAL, nor can we use his confirmation of the rumour that Roman Reigns failed the Wellness test before Money in the Bank because of WP:BLP issues. Waiting until WWE or its partners confirm these events are taking place – which I personally believe will be the case – is just compliant with Wikipedia policy. Sceptre (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually do know exactly how Wikipedia works as I've been editing mainly the WWE ppv and WWE Network lists(which I created) for many years, even when I just used an IP. I've been involved in many heated discussions during that time, especially when I feel strongly about the subject, such as which shows actually did or did not air on PPV/the Network. This discussion we're having now is not high on the importance list for me because we're talking about future events. So if you feel these pages should be deleted now and then brought back in a couple of weeks/months when we have more sources, then I won't waste my energy on fighting it. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that the Roadblock event listed above is now at WWE Roadblock (December 2016), to distinguish it from WWE Roadblock, which apparently refers to the March 2016 event of that name, and which is sourced and referenced and whatnot. No comment on the merits, as such - except to note that we're not supposed to get information quickly, we're supposed to get it correct and referenced. So if we don't have good sources yet, we need to hold off on articles for these events. Might be that they can be userfied for the interim. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's legit, why delete it? It'll just be more work to add it back later on and besides List of WWE Network events already has it listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:59B0:E126:E425:2BE8 (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed the nomination. Sceptre (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all three. Wikipedia is not a second-hand rumour mill. Str1977 (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which is great because these aren't rumors. PWInsider.com and WrestlingObserver.com are both listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources on the list of reliable verified wrestling sources. Dave Meltzer of the Observer even said "...there has been talk of doing individual Raw and Smackdown Pay Per Views/WWE Network Special Events similar to what they did during the last time they split brands. Until now, that was purely speculation. The PPV schedule that has been going around is legit." Which again means he confirmed it with WWE. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete all three I've always hated creating these stubs months in advance. These in particular fail WP:GNG and contain no substantive information.  The sources barely confirm its planned existence, that's not enough for GNG (WP:BUTITEXISTS).  These stubs are almost entirely useless, anything noteworthy can be merged and redirected to the main articles.LM2000 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2016 (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.