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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anniversary Celebration Part 2[edit]

Third Anniversary Celebration Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. A previous Afd for shows by the same company took place, and the articles were deleted. Non-notable wrestling DVD. One Night In Hackney 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. These are compilation DVDs rather than an individual show, and a similar previous Afd determined they were not notable:

Say Your Prayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Prophecy Foretold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Night In Hackney 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable wrestling DVDs. TJ Spyke 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose deletion I quote The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed.

I believe I have provided sufficient information that the articles in question are not stubs. In fact the level of information contained within the articles is superior to many of the WWE DVDs listed. The articles are not simple matchlistings, a reasonable amount of background information is given.

The RoH article states Ring of Honor has developed a loyal fanbase in the Northeast and around the country. Ring of Honor also broadcasts on The Fight Network to viewers in Canada and on TWC Fight! to viewers in Great Britain and Ireland. I believe that these articles are a useful reference point to anyone interested in RoH, it's history and an impartial description of what they offer. I think there is sufficient evidence that RoH appeals to more than just a tiny subsection of wrestling fans. Suriel1981 08:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other thoughts RoH do not do Pay-Per-Views as per WWE/TNA. A DVD article is very akin to an article on the actual show itself. Would it perhaps be more palatable to alter the articles from "RoH DVD" to "RoH Show"? I do not personally agree with this however.

• • The DVDs are just compilations of matches, and the nominator provides examples to show similar articles have been deleted (which is encouraged when nominating an article). TJ Spyke 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote again from Wikipedia guide The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. I understand the nomination process and feel that the articles nominated have a better quality of information than those which have preceded. I feel the information provided far exceeds that of The_Ultimate_Ric_Flair_Collection, Bloodsport_-_ECW's_Most_Violent_Matches, Hulk_Hogan:_The_Ultimate_Anthology, Phenomenal:_The_Best_of_AJ_Styles and Best_of_The_Bloodiest_Brawls,_Vol._1 to name a few.Suriel1981 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)***[reply]
    • For one thing, all those DVDs you just listed are available in big chain stores like Wal-Mart and FYE, whereas ROH DVDs are online only (maybe in some small specialty DVD stores). Also, past experience has shown that admins like it when you show similar articles have been deleted for the same reason. TJ Spyke 08:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first four ROH shows are available in stores like FYE and Sam Goody.PepsiPlunge 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The introduction of cruft - Incidentally, PUMA also trained under Homicide's allies Ricky Reyes and Rocky Romero but that isn't mentioned - does not make the DVDs any more notable, in my opinion it makes the articles worse. The nomination is not based on article quality (or lack of), but due to the fact that the individual DVDs are not notable enough for articles. One Night In Hackney 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am inclined to keep this, the last lot of RoH DVDs where deleted. Which I felt should of been kept. I think these DVD listings are a good source of information of what goes on in RoH. These DVDs as Suriel1981 said are on the TWC channels, notable enough to me. Also you mentioned these RoH DVDs in shops, I have seen some in Virgin Megastore here in England. Govvy 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ring of Honor being shown on TWC makes the promotion more notable, not every single DVD they produduce. Your claim that these DVDs are in Virgin Megastore is unverifiable, in fact a search for Ring of Honor on the Virgin Megastore website returns no relevant search results. Neither can I find any mention of any Ring of Honor DVDs being classified on the BBFC website, which would need to happen before any mainstream retailer would stock them. One Night In Hackney 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One Night In Hackey, I enquired about the RoH DVDs in Virgin, but they told me they shouldn't of been on the shelf, the manager upstairs told me that they were sent to them as a demo set. He also told they were not interested in selling anything of that poor quality!! So it seems those DVDs shouldn't of been for sale. Govvy 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Between the absence of spoilers and the subtle hype, this is a clear example of advertising. McPhail 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having written the articles in question I can state that they are by no means intended to be adverts. Subtle hype? Please give examples. Suriel1981 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You could also say all the WWE DVDs are clearly advertising also!! Govvy 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. This kind of thing is silly, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. NBeale 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - not notable, probably better just to include in an article listing these DVD's if at all. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.