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. — Joseph Fox 23:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bound for Glory (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future sporting event; WP:GNG  Chzz  ►  11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This list (and the 2010 edition) shows that the event is notable and will be covered by reliable sources (it already is covered by third party sources). It certainly isn't WP:CRYSTAL because it's certain to take place with the non-independent source confirming several important details. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 14:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I give up I am sick of doing this song and dance every month. You post up quick WP:JNN nominations, and everyone else has to do the work for you, as usual. I don't like hours of editors times being wasted every month by your wrestling PPV nominations. You win, Chzz. The imaginary brownie points are all yours. Maybe just once you can rewrite the article after the event takes place? No? Of course. Bound for Glory is TNA"s equivalent of WrestleMania. But who cares? Do whatever the hell you want. I'm not letting you waste my time anymore. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an ongoing series which meets wp:notability. This year's version may also meet wp:notability by itself, but it would probably be better to have it as a section in the series article. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As the main editor and at most times the only one who works on TNA PPVs, I can say this article is certainly notable as the entire company is building this one event at this time. The past several PPVs have been revolving around this one show. It has been covered in depth by wrestleview, pwtorch, wrestling observer, slam sports, etc. It is notable. As for being included in TNA Bound for Glory, that article is under re-expansion by me (the original editor who got it to GA status) and soon it will have a different format. It already includes a section regrading the event, but only a summary is to be included. The main article is needed to fully cover the promotion of this sporting event. Nominating of these PPVs is becoming rediculous. Every single event nominated as passed the notability guidelines. This needs to stop.--WillC 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 7 references makes it notable. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 15:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. Evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources makes something notable.

Ref. 1 is a YouTube advert from the producer, TNA. A primary source, and hardly neutral.

Ref. 2 doesn't look to be a reliable source - "Reported by Steve Gerweck of Wrestleview.com" (with a hotmail email address). "location announced" on a site like that hardly constitutes "significant coverage".

Ref. 3 "How Pro Wrestling Works" on HowStuffWorks is certainly not a reliable source, and seems to make no mention of this event.

Ref. 4 "bfgppv.com" is the website of the event; again, a primary source.

Ref. 5 is another blog-like posting, merely repeating "The following was posted on the Impact Wrestling Facebook page"

Ref. 7 is TNA again (the producers).  Chzz  ►  17:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per examination of refs above. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BAD FAITH NOMINATION! John cena123 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, votes like these only serve to encourage him to do this even more, and also encourages other deletionists to come in and attempt to get the article deleted on general principle alone. Please remove or amend this vote. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above !vote from John cena123, and the response following it, were both removed by John cena123 [1]; I undid that edit [2], as it inappropriately re-factored this discussion (and because it removed a comment from another user). I have indented the two comments instead.  Chzz  ►  21:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - Im tired of WWE fanboys quick to getting rid of TNA pages! 4urge (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has also AFD'd several WWE PPVs over the last couple of months so this is not a case of a WWE fanboyism.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IF your statement was true then it would mean the Wrestlemania 2012 article was selected for deletion right?...NO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4urge (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 August 2011

I had a look; WrestleMania XXVIII at least has some independent reliable sources - so, no, I don't think that should be nominated for deletion. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Chzz  ►  14:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also while it is true that he did not AFD Wrestlemania 28 he had AFD the last two WWE PPVs Money in the Bank and Summerslam 2011. There are seveal things on can can about the nominators deletions attempts but a WWE fanboy trying to remove TNA from Wikipedia is not one of them.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your still trying to take this off the topic Tell me how a PPV which is not intill next year is more noticeable than TNA Bound For Glory 2011 which has been featured on ESPN and will be also having a live concert featuring Stind, all Chzz is doing is being a WP:DIVA which his little pages 4urge (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying is that I did not agree with the assessment of WWE fanboys trying to remove TNA articles and not was supporting the attempt to delete the article. I in fact not been in favor of his deletion attempts.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

What does "which his little pages" mean in the above?  Chzz  ►  21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your getting off subject not answering my first question 4urge (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand - are you directing that comment at me? Is there something I have not answered? Apologies if you're not asking me; just, please, could you clarify? I can't see any unanswered question; I answered the one about that other article.

Also though, I would like to know what you meant by "all Chzz is doing is being a WP:DIVA which his little pages". Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not answering my questing confirming your just getting rid of this page because it's a TNA page 4urge (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? -I am trying to understand here, I really am. If your q is "why this?" then, I point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you specifically are talking of WrestleMania XXVIII, then - as I stated above - it at least has some independent reliable sources - so, no, I don't think that should be nominated for deletion.

As I've tried my very best to answer all your questions - as best I know how - could you please answer mine - ie, what you meant by "all Chzz is doing is being a WP:DIVA which his little pages". Thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Seeing you are the nominator and have done this a few times, I would believe you've done a bit of research and looked around the reliable sources sites for WP:PW, but out of curiosity I ask if you have at all? Because one little search on PWTorch using "TNA Bound for Glory" has brought up a nice little list of articles revolving around this event and that of No Surrender which was just deleted saying the sources didn't exist, when they do the article just hasn't been expanded like I stated. (on a side note as to waiting for a match to be announced, revolves around storylines and promotion for the event as it is unknown where it is leading to until the ending occurs, like a movie. You don't state the beginning when you have no end. It is pointless.) Seems to me, this is a case of the nominator not making it his duty to upgrade the articles here, instead be like many in humanity's history believing it was better to kill, in this case delete, than better or work. Can you answer these questions: Did you do any research into these events besides a goggle search of the names? Maybe even the history of the events on here to see of any notability before nominating? I ask, because sources are only a part of establishing notability on here, but seeing as you are saying this fails notability I would assume you know this by now.--WillC 07:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, before nominating, I tried to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - and I couldn't.  Chzz  ►  14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If such is true, why did you nominate SummerSlam 2011 for deletion just four days prior to the event, with significant coverage for WWE's second biggest event of the year readily available? Do you know wrestling? Do you know SummerSlam? Do you know WrestleMania? Anything wrestling? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:36, 20 August 2011 (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.