Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017)


 * 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 redirect to Royal Rumble. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2017)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising article which violates WP:PROMOTION, advertising event for January. Single ipv6 SPA account came in and removed CSD G11 speed tag, which sympathetic admins failed to remove. Article has been updated since with real date of event, 3 months hence. Advertising page. Scope creep (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thr article is going to just go back up when we get closer to the event anyways. This isn't something that is random and has no usefulness.  In fact, there is already another match announced for it.User:Jbl1975
 * I don't think this is promotional, it seems to be written in a neutral way. However, I think this should be redirected to List of WWE Network events, as currently the only information we have is essentially the date and location, which can be included on that article, and the fact there will be a Royal Rumble match, as there is every year. Until there is more substantial information, confirmed by reliable sources, to include, I don't see the point in having a separate article for this, and it will probably be a target for vandalism and unsourced information, as it already has been since it was it was changed from a redirect on September 27. For example, an unsourced match between Kevin Owens and Brock Lesnar was added. Silverfish (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is about as promotional as Super Bowl LII, it's an article on a recurring event (since 1988) where the location etc. have officially been announced.  MPJ  -DK 20:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Royal Rumble The result of Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016) seemed to agree that articles in this state should redirect to the main article until there's some build for the event. This stub offers nothing that can't be found there.LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I know these types of events may be dear to your hearts, but at the end of the day, WP is neither an event nor scheduling engine. There is plenty of sites on the net that will tell you exactly when an event is going to occur. It's misuse of Wikipedia purpose. It egregious advertising plain and simple. I guess the admins will be looking at the SPA account coming in and deleting the G11 tag, possibly as a suspected sock or meat puppet.  Scope creep (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Generally agree with Scope creep on this. There was a WrestleMania edition article which wound up on my watchlist within the past few years.  Once the event was over and done with, I went back to that article.  It was chock full of rehashings of press conferences, press releases and other pre-event posturing and painfully short on details of what actually happened at the event.  We shouldn't be, but have been, encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a dumping ground for this sort of thing, the existence of reliable sources or not.  In the United States, we have the presidential election going on (and on and on and on...).  See Political positions of Hillary Clinton for perhaps the worst example of a dumping ground I have ever seen on Wikipedia, an article that's of use to no one except drooling fanboys.  There's a reason for such a comparison: with elections as with events of this sort, we're demonstrating that "enduring notability" are merely two words one throws together to score brownie points in a particular discussion and nothing more when we give so much weight to events which haven't happened yet versus events which have happened. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  23:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A few years ago we discussed redirecting WrestleMania articles until after the Rumble. It's a proposal we should probably look into again, but there has always been opposition against changes like this.LM2000 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Royal Rumble per LM2000.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per MPJDK. Location and venue have been confirmed. If the result is retarget though, it should go to the Royal Rumble page. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point being what, exactly? Your rationale merely affirms the nominator's rationale.  Contrary to prevailing opinion, we're not here to serve as another social media site for current events. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because it's about an event that will generate profits for a company doesn't mean that it's promotional. The page itself is neutrally written. It's a recurring event that will get its own page and which already has verifiable information about it. ( EDIT: Added information from Sky Sports source, so the page doesn't just use WWE sources -- 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC) )This seems like the wrestling equivalent of Super Bowl LII or the 43rd Chess Olympiad. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not following your reasoning. When you say "neutrally written", I don't see that as a problem.  Rather, I see yet another article that's slavishly devoted to a particular manual of style and/or particular sources, but doesn't exactly deliver much in the way of information value and won't until the event or something besides announcements of various minor details actually happens.  Keep in mind that we've been in a billion-website world for quite some time.  Regardless of what Alexa may say at any particular point, Wikipedia's stock in terms of public perception has been falling for years.  Offering only the same content you can find at thousands or millions of other places on the web or the equivalent of clickbait to a cherry-picked list of other websites isn't going to help that any.  Notice that in my original comment, I reference the use of the term "enduring notability" in various discussions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, specifically whether the term is misused or whether editors only give lip service to the concept.  I'm reminded of something from Bobby Heenan's autobiography where he had a conversation with Eric Bischoff during the Monday Night Wars.  Bischoff was bragging to Heenan that "I've been on top for 36 weeks", to which Heenan replied "So what, I've been on top for 36 years".  That quote sums up my attitude in general about our coverage of future events when contrasted with our non-coverage or trivial coverage of countless notable past events.  While the Sky Sports source was helpful, I'm perfectly capable of finding their website without having to use a Wikipedia article as a portal.  That falls under WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm tired of constantly having to make that argument. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking through past Royal Rumble articles, we have an article for everyone one of these events since the first one in 1988, so it seems that these events do have enduring notability. If someone has a problem with the quality of sourcing in older articles, it seems counterproductive to delete/redirect articles on upcoming events, since that makes it harder for people to add good sourcing. If this had been a redirect, I never would've added the SkySports source, and looking at the quality of older Royal Rumble articles, it may never have been added. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:188:2A2C:35E4:AD97 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – I really get tired of seeing bitey Twinkle warriors polluting my watchlist with dubious edits such as and  all the time.  You appear to be taking a position in this discussion by effectively striking someone else's !vote in the form of repeatedly reverting their edits, all the while making no contributions of your own to the discussion apart from trying to demonstrate your fondness for and/or mastery of Twinkle.  This was especially made clear in your last edit summary.  If there's evidence to support the notion that the IP is a sockpuppet, then and only then could I see some justification for what you're doing.  Otherwise, it's highly improper to delete someone's !vote simply because you don't care for the opinion they're offering. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot, why this should be deleted? Because of that IP user claiming this is a "fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable?" Yeah, I think so. However, if I take step back, and look through the previous RR events, it should not be deleted. It takes a while to organize a major sport event (venue, location), like this one or even the Super Bowl. Take the Royal Rumble (2016), for instance, which was announced and created in April 2015, months before it took place in January 2016. Any arguments? I think so. My vote, will remain as keep. Nickag 989 talk 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I restored that !vote until more compelling reasons can be given to remove it. At any rate, if need be, striking it like this and offering a rationale for same is typically preferred.  If you don't follow WP:ITN/C, until fairly recently, the rationale the IP gave is barely removed from the reasons many editors had for why pro wrestling-related content doesn't belong on the main page.  Don't get me started on the compatibility of that stance to NPOV; as I refer to above and elsewhere, the vast majority of our coverage of the current U.S. presidential election is a bad, bad joke, but I'm not on a crusade to do something about it (yet). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Royal Rumble per the precedent set by the conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016). -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - This hasn't happened yet, and there's no urgent or pressing need to discuss it until it does. That's my view. The above arguments make a lot of sense. After it happens, we can work through notability concerns, sourcing concerns, neutral point of view concerns, and the like. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested. Right now, we don't even know the line-up, nor even the countries/ethnicities represented. Unlike the Olympics, this is sponsored by a for-profit entity, and is subject to cancellation. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 18 October 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.