Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA Sacrifice

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

TNA Sacrifice
Wikipedia is not a playbill, and besides, after two weeks, this article will be dead in the water. Denni &#9775; 01:37, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
 * Question: what did the discussion about cricket matches decide? -Splash 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep In two weeks this will become a full-fledged article about a pay-per-view that has occured, much in the same way as TNA Destination X, TNA Slammiversary, TNA No Surrender, TNA Turning Point, WrestleMania and its twenty-one individual event wiki articles, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, WWE Judgement Day, WWE No Way Out, StarrCade, The Great American Bash, WWE Backlash, WWE Vengeance, Survivor Series, and every other similar article. --Kitch 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It won't be "dead in the water", it'll be a valuable reference for those who want a comprehensive account of the event. McPhail 12:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kitch Youngamerican 14:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep contains a start for a potentially informative article, after the event. Uber nemo 14:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: First, are you folks dipping into the forbidden cookies?  "In the future" is not an argument about the article one way or another.  In the future, it will be the future.  At present, it's advertising, and, in case no one has read the deletion guidelines lately, that's a no-no.  Secondly, if we do play that game and think of the future, this will be an article about a single iteration of an ongoing event -- a single wrastlin' happening.  Only those with some significance, some impact, some effect on contexts other than fan delight are requiring an encyclopedia article.  I surely wish folks would pay attention to the deletion guidelines every once in a while and not vote "keep" on anything that happens to square with their hobby.  Geogre 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So by your logic, everything after 2005 in Category:Films by year has no right to exist until the day it is released, because until then it is nothing but shameless advertising. McPhail 17:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't exist, the article is speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it is not merely speculation, but hype, then it is advertising, so yes.  What on earth is anyone doing thinking that there should be an encyclopedia discussion of something that doesn't even exist yet?  Geogre 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My take: in the case of a film, it should have be decided on a case-by-case basis, but very few films should have articles about them before they are released. If a film were a) so important that it was being written about in mainstream newspapers in the news section, and b) the article stuck to verifiable facts about the state of the film at the time of writing. For example, if someone discovered a print of the famous lost 1926 movie version of The Great Gatsby, and it was in the process of being restored, that would deserve an article describing the circumstances of its discovery and its restoration. On the other hand, there is no reason in the world why we need an article on The Dukes of Hazzard prior to its release and review. Until then, fans can sate their curiosity at imdb or the studio's website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news medium. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre DES 15:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. --Scimitar parley 18:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advert --gkagan
 * Delete, wikipedia articles are not about future events. After the event happens or does not happen, it might be suitable for an article but at this point it's an advertisement. Pedant 20:10, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
 * Should articles on Olympics, elections, etc. also be deleted? Is there a codified answer to this problem? (note, I am not asking sarcastcally, I am just curious about a precedent that may exist that I am not familiar with.) Youngamerican 20:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:NOT. There are areas of consensus and areas of controversy. A particular problem, to my way of thinking, is the use of Wikipedia to promote an upcoming event and create "buzz." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That link states that "future events...are not suitable topics for articles, unless...planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion". The event is definitely in the process of being planned and prepared, and it's an event that thousands of people will watch, so I'd argue it warrants inclusion. McPhail 15:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Your choice of advertising, crystal ball, or non-notable. --Carnildo 20:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all three reasons mentioned by Carnildo. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not predicting the future it is placing scheduled matches (officially announced matches that are not speculation) and providing a background history to them, by the time this discussion is over this will have become a documented result of a sports entertainment supercard.--- Paulley 09:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Grue   13:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I request Judgement from the admins. Even if it is deleted now, it will only show up again after the event. --Kitch 09:38, 1 August 2005 (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.