Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smackdown vs Raw 2009 Roster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. There is an almost unanimous consensus to delete, relisting is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Smackdown vs Raw 2009 Roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Resize and merge into WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. No such article exists for the 2008 version. StaticGull Talk 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreferenced character list. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Even though IGN has a roster update article [1], as you can see it's nothing compared to the article in question. The roster for the upcoming SVR09 seem to solely come from forum postings (such as here for example), none of which I can verify as being a reliable source. Hence, this article fails WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Change to Merge to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. Sources supporting some sort of roster seem to be found. However, this is not notable enough to have its own article; it can, though, fit perfectly in the main game article. I still support semi-protection due to the high volume of anon vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Xeron220 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note article has been vandalized frequently, removing the AfD tag among other things. JuJube (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh...why is this still here? It's obviously immature bullshit. 69.23.214.90 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — User has engaged in continuous vandalism of the article in question. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't know trying to get rid of obviously false information was "vandalism." That's one example of why this site is a joke. You're letting 12 year olds who make shit up run it. hahaha 69.23.136.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — Request for this article to be semi-protected has been made to WP:RPP. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unnecessary and incorrectly vandalized page. Recommend speedy deletion. JakeDHS07 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Non-notable. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — article has been flagged for rescue. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's just a list.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely Pointless--Adam Penale (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. WP:PW consensus was to wait for the entire roster list to be revealed before adding it to the article, so it shouldn't even be merged at this point either, let alone have it's own page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My initial hunch would be to rename to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 roster and redirect to main article. It doesn't seem like there is an opposition to the material as much as am effort to let it grow organically from the main article. Having stated that the consensus to hold off could have been made a bit in a vacuum or simply ignored. The main article from the previous year seems to be able to contain all that year's roster so maybe letting it grow in the main article is a good idea. I suggest, though, that letting those interested in building content be encouraged and supported so maybe just moving this to a sandbox of the main might be a solution and direct those eager to play be encouraged to emulate good editing behaviour there where mistakes don't corrupt or offend as easily. Banjeboi 09:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you people serious? Why is this still here? It's so obviously kids making crap up. Way to encourage them by allowing them to make false articles and not deleting them. Maxwell7985 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, AfD discussions normally last for five days. Second, there are alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting. Third, the article is semi-protected so only kids who know how to become a registered Wikipedia user can go on and "make crap up." MuZemike (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please refrain from whining and incivility in this discussion. MuZemike (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge so Delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (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.