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. Majorly 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmackDown! Sprint[edit]

SmackDown! Sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a non-notable series of matches that began on Smackdown this week and will end on Smackdown next week. This fails the notability policy, amounts to fancruft and random information, and thus far WP:PW has unanimously decided that this page doesn't deserve to exist. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but nothing applies to it. -- The Hybrid 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who disagreed? It was, and still is, unanimous. If you were talking about Govvy, he disagreed that it had been done on Raw before, but he still agreed that this article didn't deserve to exist. -- The Hybrid 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected on Govy's point. Still, that leaves the rest of what I said unaddressed. Namely a) that there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference between this tournament and an episode or episodes of a television series; and b) that the "unanimous" consent of WP:PW consisted of exactly three editors (Paulley, Hybrid, Govvy). I didn't post there, but obviously I would have posted the same comments there as I did here. Dugwiki 17:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episode lists and synopses of wrestling episodes have been deleted as unencyclopedic. And yes, I chose to skip over the fact that only three people voted. However, that still leaves the rest of my nomination unaddressed. -- The Hybrid 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your nomination, "Cruft" is not a reason for deletion. As far as notability, I gave examples above of a couple of other television series I pulled out of the air that are less notable in terms of viewership than Smackdown episodes but which are apparently considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. So again, to rephrase, my question comes down to this - why are Smackdown episode articles held to a different standard than either reality television episode articles or less popular scripted television episode articles? If Smackdown is at least as popular, if not more, than other shows that have complete articles about every episode, then why shouldn't there likewise be articles about main Smackdown episodes or story arcs? Dugwiki 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that cruft was a reason for deletion; I was simply driving home the non-notability point. Anyway, there are precedents for deleting synopses of wrestling episodes. They are held to a different standard due to the quantity of them in my opinion. Raw has over 700 episodes, and Smackdown has been going on for a long time now. A summary of every episode is an incredibly large amount of articles to have on any subject. For comparison, more than double the total number of articles on the infamous Pokémon. -- The Hybrid 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely correct that there are many more episodes in a season of Smackdown or RAW than a typical television, because the shows air once a week every week with no repeats. However, storylines and multi-episode tournaments such as this one take multiple weeks to resolve, so the total number of story- or tourny-related articles wouldn't be any greater than the number of episodes for a scripted series or reality show.
In fact, though, this brings up a broader question about how to organize pro-wrestling television show articles in general. Let's assume for the moment that we don't want to include specific articles for individual wrestling show episodes due to the sheer number of episodes involved. What if you were to compact that information into, say, multi-week storyline specific articles (like this one) or month-by-month synopsis timeline articles for a series? Doing that would reduce the number of articles to a more manageable 10-20 articles per year per show.
Since it's looking to me like I'm getting into the realm of broader overall discussion of wrestling show articles in general, I'll leave this particular afd nomination up to consensus and instead pose the above questions over at WP:PW. Who knows, maybe in the broader review it'll turn out that there is a way to present episodic-style information about wrestling in a compact enough form to be managable? Dugwiki 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a response to all keep votes, we don't keep things because they could become notable someday. We only keep things after they have already become notable. -- The Hybrid 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Star911, if you want to tell us why we are wrong we are listening, but just saying it does nothing. -- The Hybrid 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed out of the voting (Can't see but I bet this is all the same person.)[edit]

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.
More