Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWF Mayhem in Manchester

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Mayhem in Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Has been a redirect for many years, which occasionally gets reconstituted back into an article. Current sourcing is poor (to be charitable). Couple of brief blurbs, couple of database listings. The best in terms of content is a blog, unfortunately. Searches turned up very little in terms of any coverage, let alone substantive in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The previous article which was a redirected is completely different than the article in its current form. The event meets WP:LASTING as it is still talked about today due to its controversy over originally being a PPV to becoming a poorly shot home video release. There is enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG. - Galatz^Talk 18:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly a notable event. I find it hard to believe there are no paper sources or newspaper articles in tabloids for the event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete - None of the sources currently in the article are proven reliable sources. According to WP:PW/RS, 411mania and prowrestlinghistory.com are "not yet proven". And even if prowrestlinghistory was a reliable source, this is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE match results. I don't buy the WP:LASTING argument either (at least not yet). According to WP:LASTING, "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable" and "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". What permanent effect did this have? What is the reliable source that proves this event was the direct cause of said result? Nikki♥311 23:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've finally had a chance to more thoroughly research this topic, and I've decided on delete. This topic does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 01:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:EVENT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What part of WP:EVENT? It's had no lasting effect (as pointed out by Nikki311 above), the depth of coverage by reliable sources is non-existent, it has very limited scope. Not sure how it meets EVENT. Simply saying meets a standard is not the same as showing how it meets that standard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My gut feeling looking at this says keep, but it in fact, it doesn't meet any of the criteria to keep under WP:EVENT. None of the sources are particularly notable, independant of the subject, or qualify as RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing is bad and doesn't have coverage in reliable, independent sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:20, 9 March 2018 (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.