Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble Match Results


 * 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. W.marsh 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Match Results

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

All information already covered in individual article for each year, see Royal Rumble (1988) for example. One Night In Hackney 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. An incomplete and unnecessary duplication. Soltak | Talk 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, redundant information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep DXRAW 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would point out that AfD is a discussion and not a vote and therefore does not work if one simply writes "keep" or "delete" without stating their reasoning. Soltak | Talk 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have heard that before but going by previous discussions it does not matter what people think only the closing admin. One example is an article had the result of keep but the closing admin redirected it and locked the page so it could not be reversed. Anyway whats the point in writing "Keep - Because i don't think it should be deleted", when just a plain keep can do. DXRAW 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ....erm, because "Keep because I don't want it deleted" is not a valid argument and the closing admin will most likely disregard it anyway - see WP:ATA, specifically the bit that says Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature is almost certainly not going to be considered by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present actual reasons as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons. ChrisTheDude 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline DXRAW 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay or not, most closing admins completely disregard straight "votes" in an AfD discussion. Soltak | Talk 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --  oakster    TALK   14:53, 7 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.