Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Raw 1000


 * 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 keep. No prejudice against a specific discussion for merging. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WWE Raw 1000

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable episode of WWE Raw. Feed back  ☎ 02:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)  Feed  back  ☎ 02:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to WWE Raw. Special episodes of weekly TV do not get their own articles as we've discussed extensively with articles such as Destination X (2013), WWE The Great American Bash (2012), and Hardcore Justice (2013).LM2000 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge, but as Wrestlinglover points out, very little of note actually happened here. The bits worth mentioning should be included at WWE Raw, but it seems that the fact that the show lasted 1000 episodes is more notable as a milestone than anything that happened at the actual 1000th show.LM2000 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Going by the abovementioned articles by LM2000... and WP:PW did establish a consensus on this... we should merge content of WWE Raw 1000 into WWE Raw, meanwhile delete and redirect the WWE Raw 1000 article.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I do agree with LM2000 to the extent that we don't need to merge all the content of WWE Raw 1000 because not all of it seems notable. The old-school cameos probably only need a mention by name, not what they did. Six-man and Clay's match seem to be not notable as well.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 07:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The episode was promoted like a pay-per-view instead of a "normal" special episode of Raw not to mention it was an incredibly historic episode. Strongly disagree with the nominator's notion that it it not notable. Had I known of such a discussion I would have opposed any merging or deletion there.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 00:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be hypocritical if we ended up keeping this as a separate article while we combined all the TNA ex-PPVs into the main Destination X article for example, also the same thing was done for the WWE The Great American Bash. See previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_88. Starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion, I think the consensus it formed is an extreme disservice to an encyclopedia. Certain special episodes need their own article, especially ones that are PPV supercards on regular weekly TV.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 16:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How do we ascertain which "certain" television episodes need their own articles? Old School Raw? Slammy Awards Raw? Thanksgiving Raw? Would Final Resolution 2013 represent a supercard of three matches? Hell, Raw 1000 is definitely not a supercard, only the two title matches deserve to be on PPV, the others are a throwaway six-man tag, Brodus Clay winning in 15 seconds, and Lita winning in 35 seconds.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 13:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it simpler if we just say, hey, you're TV, if the event is related to a bigger article, let's merge it, and leave just PPV for main articles?  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 13:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Simpler is not always better. The best way IMO to ascertain which deserve it is the coverage is receives. The more important, the more coverage and promotion is receives.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and how exactly can we determine how much coverage it receives? It does not seem very quantifiable to me.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my reasoning. I believe the article meets WP:GNG and I think it's sourced well, though it could be improved further, and the article is nicely written.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 17:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge: Promoted as PPV or not it is still week by week. Essentially all of the new TNA PPVs are now tv specials and promoted the same way, yet they still don't meet notability as they can't stand alone. 1000 episode is notable, but the results of the show are nothing special as nothing actually happened. Anything special can be merged with the main article. The rest is trivia.-- Will C  06:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say nothing actually happened. Cena cashing in his MITB for a WWE Championship match, IC title changed hands, Bryan's wedding / AJ becomes GM. Also, culmination of Heath Slater vs the Legends.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 07:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of that is better suited elsewhere. Next we'd be making an article about every Austin beer bash.-- Will C  14:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If your "elsewhere" is WWE Raw, then I agree with you.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It was promoted more like a COTC. It was a Special Event. obviously every Austin beer bash is not notable, but RAW 1000 is. 197.87.8.101 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that every single Clash of the Champions events are housed in the parent article, which COTC has an article of its own? Raw 1000 featured a total of two title matches, whereas the PPVs usually have four-six titles on the line.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As Starship points out, this argument doesn't make much sense. Simply being a special event isn't enough to justify an individual article.  Saturday Night's Main Events, COTC, Slammy Awards, TNA PPVs on free TV are all special events, often promoted like PPVs, but they don't get their own articles.  Some of them get their own sections on main articles though, maybe you meant merge instead of keep.LM2000 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, the NFL has specific game pages for example, this is a special occasion and deserves its own page.--SportsMaster (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this post as an insult. I haven't seen you edit pro wrestling articles and your name is SportsMaster, and you talked about the NFL, so perhaps you are more familiar with other sports. We have specific pages in WP:PW for events held on pay-per-view (PPV). They have their own articles, so we do cater for special occasions. However, WP:PW did have a discussion on whether special television episodes which are promoted like PPVs, or have content that are similar to PPVs, should have their own pages. The result of the discussion was, they are ultimately TV episodes, so like every other TV episode, they don't deserve their own page.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect I still stand by my original comments. This article is notable for only a few things. In its current state it is not good enough to establish notability as a single article. It is written like a PPV article yet it isn't a PPV. PPVs have their own notability because they generate revenue in obvious ways. This doesn't show how this is significant to the overall production of the company. It is an important moment in the company's history, however, that is a footnote in the WWE Raw article as well as the main article WWE. The title match is best suited in the articles it connects too, Money in the Bank ladder match, Money in the Bank (2012), John Cena, and CM Punk. In its current state it is a trivia page for fans.-- Will C  16:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will, you of all people know you already !voted and don't get a second one.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 17:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't voting a second time. It was relisted so I stated my choice again. This isn't about voting. It is about consensus. The decision is never done by vote but by majority rule through discussion.-- Will C  04:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should look up the term "!vote" on meta. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 05:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable episode with significant coverage in reliable sources cited throughout article. --  Wikipedical (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This explains why the content should be kept, but doesn't explain why it can't be merged.  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. - This wasn't your typical run of the mill Raw episode...this was highly promoted (even better than some of their PPVs), stacked with legends/HOFers, they dragged Charlie Sheen out from his little crazy world to make an appearance, and all in all was played up as one of WWE's biggest milestones. It's worth it's own article.  Vjmlhds (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Promoted, yes. A milestone, yes. Not a run of the mill Raw episode, yes. But what actually happened? About half or one third of what would happen on PPVs (which get their own articles) Seriously, to sum up this episode, it's two title matches (something commonly seen on PPV), some regular TV stuff (culmination of Slater's Legends feud, a wedding, Lesnar/HHH buildup), and a hell of a bunch of cameos. This goes against the previous consensus by WP:PW that "PPV stuff on TV" doesn't deserve their own article. Why can't it be featured within WWE Raw? Could you respond to that?  starship.paint  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look all around Wikipedia, you'll see that special episodes of numerous shows have their own articles, for example the final episode of M*A*S*H*, or the Cheers finale, as well as for mundane episodes of shows like Family Guy (like this for example), or How I Met Your Mother (like this for example) and on and on. So Raw 1000 - being a special milestone show - is certainly worthy of it's own article, just as much as all the others I pointed out if not more so. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But every episode of Family Guy, every episode of How I Met Your Mother, and a good portion of MASH episodes have their own articles.  So I don't think this situation is similar.  This article sets a precedent for wrestling related articles, as Will points out.  These are all special episodes of Raw, yet for some reason this is the only episode in the history of Raw that gets its own individual article.LM2000 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're looking at it from a strictly wrestling point of view. The big picture is that Raw is a nationally broadcast weekly primetime TV show, just like M*A*S*H and all the rest.  And Raw 1000 is a particularly notable episode of the program, because after all, no other primetime TV show has ever hit that mark.  You have to take the overall view of looking at as being an episode of a long running TV program, and not just looking at it in it's own little sphere of pro wrestling.  Vjmlhds (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The way we have dealt with maintaining information regarding wrestling shows has been different than that of other primetime shows... WWE isn't confined to seasons and as a result puts on one episode of Raw per week. Because there are so many, we cannot create articles for individual shows, like you can with Family Guy or HIMYM.  Some Raw specials, such as the Slammy Awards or King of the Ring, have the useful content of what happened on those particular shows placed in their respective articles, which is why merging the little pertinent info from the Raw 1000 article makes sense to me.  What bothers me is that this is the only Raw episode to have its own article.  Why doesn't Raw is Owen, an undoubtedly more notable episode, have its own article (not that I think it does, everything pertinent is on Owen Hart)?  Slippery slope after that, and we end up debating whether or not the beer truck episode gets a page.  I guess we'll just have to deal with those discussions when they happen since this AfD is headed towards an obvious keep and has overridden previous consensus on the matter.LM2000 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually we have an issue as none of the explanations for keeping this have shown why this passes the WP:Notability guideline. They have all been "This deserves a page." It still isn't properly sources enough to justify notability in its current state. Promoted as a PPV? That doesn't mean much because it still isn't a PPV. These days the Raws are promoted better than the PPVs.-- Will C  11:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no issue that I see with WP:N. It's very notable in that:  It was the 1,000th episode of a long running primetime TV show; It was the beginning of the permanent 3 hour format for Raw;  It marked the beginning of CM Punk's "you will respect me" heel turn after hitting The Rock with a GTS.  So numerous important things happened on this show, which makes it notable enough to warrant it's own page.  Vjmlhds (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those justify a single article. They are all small notes. You summed up everything important in pretty much 2 sentences. 1000th episode? Note in main article, nothing more really needed. 3 hour format? Another note. WCW Nitro went 3 hours in the 90s. Impact went 3 hours in 2010. This is common place now with mainstream wrestling. Punk's heel run? Under your logic, anyone who goes heel on any show and it is popular means that episode is automatically notable for its own article. No. That is a note in Punk's article. It is plain and simple, the only reason this article exists is because fanism. Nothing earth shattering happened. I see episodes with more significance out there than this. Shane buys WCW. WCW wrestlers show up on Raw. ECW invades Raw. etc etc. This was just a special edition of Raw that was promoted as a big deal and for the right reasons. This should be merged. A play by play of this show is not needed. It is not a stand-alone notable article.-- Will C  14:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: This episode seems to have been promoted similarly to a PPV and should be treated as such. I agree with the keep arguments above.  Gloss  •  talk  06:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable episode, significant milestone in television as a whole. No merge either. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2014 (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.