Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016)

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. Nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Champions (2016)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016) recently deleted three articles in a similar state. All three failed WP:GNG and this one does too, the only new argument is that tickets for this event are on Ticketmaster, this is not enough to establish notability per WP:EVENT. I had previously redirected this to List of WWE pay-per-view events; this current article contains no information that isn't there. LM2000 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I'm really surprised that LM2000 is suggesting this article be deleted. You are usually pretty level-headed and understand how wrestling PPV pages work. Once WWE announces an event on their site and then when Ticketmaster puts tickets on sale, especially now that we're only about 2 months away from the event, that is usually more than enough information needed to confirm an event. Also the information included on the article notes that this is a brand new PPV event and that it is not a continuation of the Night Of Champions PPV series, something that WWE notes themselves in one of the included sources. A lot of people are assuming this PPV is using the same chronology as Night Of Champions and they keep making edits to the Night Of Champions page to include Clash Of Champions. If, for no other reason, this page lets people know that it is indeed a brand new event. There have been plenty of times in the past where pages for a PPV event are created several months before the event takes place, why is this any different? Heck, WrestleMania 33 already has a WP page and that show is not for another 8 and 1/2 months! OldSkool01 (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", see WP:SIGCOV. I think the project has a tendency to prematurely create these articles before the subjects are notable. Comparing the PPV that replaced Night of Champions to WrestleMania, WWE's Superbowl, is apples and oranges, although nothing of value would be lost if we redirect that to the main WrestleMania article until they start building toward it after the Royal Rumble. We almost did that last year with WrestleMania 32 and we probably should have.LM2000 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. It's not apples and oranges at all. In fact this page has more relevant references to the subject than the WrestleMania 33 page does. I even added a reference directly from the arena holding the event which gives a tentative list of wrestlers that are scheduled to appear at Clash Of Champions. Also in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016), the main discussion point for deletion of those pages was that those shows were not yet confirmed by either WWE themselves or Ticketmaster. In this case, Clash Of Champions is confirmed by both as well as the arena site. Is your argument that pages shouldn't be made until matches for the event are announced? Because that then becomes a completely different conversation. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is that this clearly fails WP:GNG. You've added WP:PRIMARY sources from the promotion which will put on the show and from stadium which will hold it, you've also referenced the website selling the tickets; none of this counts GNG as they're not independent of the subject. Significant coverage from independent secondary sources does not exist. That was why the nominator of the Roadblock AfD, @Reddogsix:, nominated that, and that's why I voted delete.LM2000 (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. This is the exact opposite of the discussion I had with someone on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadblock (2016) page. There I provided independent sources confirming the event will be taking place and their argument was the independent sources didn't count unless WWE or Ticketmaster themselves confirm it. Now in this article I provide sources directly from WWE and Ticketmaster and you're saying it's not good unless we have independent sources. Something is screwed up here. Also there is an independent source on the page from PWInsider. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lone independent source and it's a passing mention and WP:ROUTINE. WWE confirming its existence isn't enough per WP:ITEXISTS.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to note that's the same source that was provided in the last AfD, it wasn't enough there and it shouldn't be enough here. The fact that the PPV is in late September also means nothing, Backlash is scheduled sooner than Clash of Champions and that got deleted with Roadblock. My hope is that these AfDs establish new criteria for when the project creates these articles, when WWE and Ticketmaster announce the event is irrelevant and not based on policy, articles should be created only when the subject passes GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying ppv pages shouldn't be created until matches are announced. And even then, the majority of references come directly from WWE.com. The only time there is more independent coverage is after the ppv is over and other websites cover the results. Go look at SummerSlam 2016 and WrestleMania 33. How many "independent sources" directly mention those events on their respective pages? You won't get many, if any, independent sources for an event until matches are announced. And if you feel a new rule should be implemented where ppv pages are not created until matches are announced then we need to open up that debate to other editors because that is a much bigger conversation and this isn't the right forum for it. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a new policy, I'm asking that we follow current policy. Some events will never be notable, others may be notable many months in advance.LM2000 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just added 2 more independent sources. So now we have independent sources and direct sources from WWE, Ticketmaster and the arena. Not sure what else you're looking for. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first F4wonline link was put forth in the other AfD and contains the same trivial mention that PWInsider reports. The second F4wonline source doesn't mention the PPV at all. No sources describe the event in detail as needed per WP:SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In detail? There aren't any matches announced yet! Other than the date, time, city, arena, etc.(which are all sourced) what other details are you looking for? Until matches are announced, there isn't going to be much more detail available. Which goes back to my earlier point, you're basically saying ppv pages shouldn't be made until matches are announced. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at SummerSlam 2016. How many independent sources describe that event in detail? OldSkool01 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the difference between Clash of Champions and the three other pages recently deleted is that the event is verified to be happening with a high degree of certainty. There isn't a pressing need to have an skeleton article in place so far out for a B-show, but there really isn't a parent article to easily redirect to (ordinarily, it would be WWE Night of Champions–as it has a similar name and in the mid-September slot–but there's no verified source either way saying if the event gimmick is going to be kept). Sceptre (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have supported a merge if this event had been Night of Champions (2016) instead of Clash of Champions (2016)?LM2000 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a continuation of Night Of Champions then all we would need to do is redirect this page to the main Night Of Champions page for now and just list this year's event with the rest of them. But WWE is calling this the inaugural Clash Of Champions so there's no evidence yet that this is following the same lineage as Night Of Champions. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. If this article was another edition of an annual event (I used NOC as an example), rather than the first event as this is, you would be okay with redirecting it to the main article rather than leaving a stub like this? Because it's not uncommon for these stubs of dubious notability to get left like this.LM2000 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how much information we can confirm for the event, how far away the event is, etc. I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement for every ppv. It should be a case by case situation. In this case I wouldn't mind if Clash Of Champions redirected to its own main article if there were previous WWE Clash Of Champions events. One of the main reasons I'm supporting to keep this page is because there isn't a main article with previous events. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE confirmed that Clash of Champions will be a Raw exclusive event. They also confirmed Backlash 2016 as a SmackDown exclusive event. Ticketmaster also has a link for Backlash tickets. It looks like it's only a matter of time before No Mercy and Roadblock get added as well. In the meantime, can we end this debate to delete this page? OldSkool01 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: as above, I think there is enough for notability, barely, and there is no obvious redirection options anyway, so its a keep for me. Mattlore (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I remain unconvinced that this passes the GNG bar and I believe the only useful information in the stub is already at List of WWE pay-per-view events. The differences between this and Roadblock AfD events seem negligible and the keep criteria, such as events being listed on Ticketmaster, seem arbitrary and not based on policy. This has been relisted once and probably will get relisted again, by the time it comes to its natural conclusion the event may actually be notable. With that, I understand that this isn't going to get deleted and that this AfD isn't going to end the policy of creating these stubs many months in advance before the subject is notable. However, there does seem to be some agreement that if this had been a reoccurring event, such as WWE Night of Champions, a redirect would have been fine in this case.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2016 (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.