Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to explain? Monthly results pages are not needed TJ Spyke 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)I am also adding:[reply]

• TNA iMPACT! results, August 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, December 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, February 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, January 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, June 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, July 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, June and July 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, March 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, May 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, September 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, October 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, November 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, June 2004
• TNA iMPACT! results, May 2005

• Delete I appreciate this is someone's hard work, but good grief imagine if every "sporting" code on Wikipedia had a new page each dedicated to a monthly update - it would be a nightmare! Thats why we dont do it, sorry - Glen 05:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Fancruft. RobJ1981 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, How is this different from an episode guide for a TV series? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Numerous television series have articles for every episode on Wikipedia. Impact is a television series, and should thus be treated similarly. McPhail 11:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously torn I wrote almost all of these. In a way, it's fancruft. Yet also, it keeps in line with episode guides that are permitted for television shows. I don't know what to do. --Kitch 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best thing I can come up with is consolidate to either a seasonal or annual format. --Kitch 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reorganize. I like the seasonal layout, cf. Episodes of Lost (season 1) et al. - Trevyn 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Fancruft, as the main author has admitted - not suitable for an encyclopedia. I recomment to User:Kitch and other authors that they move the content to their own wiki at Wikia, so they don't have to feel that their work is simply going to waste. Bwithh 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Total fancruft for a second-rate wrestling promotion. Renosecond 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I am going to have to vote Keep all & reorganize here. This is a useful resource for someone who wants to look into the history of the show, and as someone pointed out above it really isn't any different than all the TV shows that have articles on individual episodes. Author should find a way to source the articles, however, even if it means simply listing the episode in question as a source. VegaDark 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclosure: big wrestling fan, big TNA fan. But... Delete - this is taking things pretty far in considering that this is an encyclopedia. Consider that these results are pre-scripted each week, unlike other sports, and the storylines in pro wrestling are far less deep than other television shows, and I think the need for constant and continuous tracking of results in an encyclopedia is very slim. Episodes of shows like Lost, etc., have long-running and deep storylines that might be hard to track, and it would make sense to have a summary available (though if they came up, I'd opt for deleting those too, as I think that's kind of silly to include in an encyclopedia). Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Yes, people, I'm sure wrestling is a fine sport and all, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a wrestling fanzine. Aren't there specialist wikis for such content? Sandstein 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glen has a point, what would happen if there were articles like "NBA results, December 2005" and "NFL results, September 2005"? It's just too much. TJ Spyke 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly have trouble understanding the concept of an encyclopedia that wants to exclude knowledge of this depth just because it can. Yes, it's fairly trivial knowledge, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge, but these articles are not an indiscriminate collection--they're nicely organized, formatted and compartmentalized, and will only get more so as they live on. Even Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia mentions the word's origin as "the idea of collecting all of the world's knowledge into a single work". M-W says it's "a comprehensive reference work". Why limit ourselves to the length encyclopedias have been in the past? If Wikipedia isn't meant to be a true encyclopedia, then that's fine too, but I haven't seen the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia page yet. -- Trevyn 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is not indiscriminate information merge is fine too Yuckfoo 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was not my initial reaction, but upon consideration: regardless of whether you look at this as "sporting results" or as "television episodes", deleting these would leave a large number of articles behind which are no more notable or encyclopedic. I can't seem to find even a proposed policy on TV episode notability - I think it would be best to try to hash one out before singling out articles for deletion whilst plenty of other articles on episodes of TV shows I've never heard of remain. --Stormie 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Edgecution 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, TV episode guides per Stormie, Trevyn etc. Merging would also be fine, as would splitting the article into separate pages for each bout. Kappa 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Seperate pages for each bout would be a total nightmare if it becomes policy. Take WWE for example: 3 shows a week, average 3-6 matches per show. That's a potential 18 new articles per week now let's take this back over several years. I'm also abstaining from the vote as I am suffering a conflict of conscience between episode guide and listcruft. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some TV shows do not need articles for episodes, I doubt anyone would support creating articles for individual episodes of news shows or Monday Night Football games for example. Several non-notable episodes of Raw have had articles delete here or in the process of deletion(Raw Roulette and Raw Bowl for example). TJ Spyke 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe it would be fancruft to keep this on a general interest encylopedia. However, since these articles are pretty well written, I'd heavily recommend that somebody transwiki these to a pro wrestling wiki if WP:PW agrees on adopting one as that wiki would have the purpose of having a more in depth view in professional wrestling that a general interest encylopedia cannot provide. --Oakster ^(Talk) 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Oak's idea, if a pro wrestling wiki is started these can be transwikied there. TJ Spyke 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per reno. --Akhonji 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Trevyn. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per MCB Sasaki 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all - fancruft at its absolute worst, as even the creator of the series half-heartedly admits (see Kitch's vote above): "In a way, it's fancruft." Actually, its fancruft in any conceivable way. "Yet also, it keeps in line with episode guides that are permitted for television shows." The idea of episode guides is dubious in itself; at any rate, the comparison doesn't apply because these are strictly speaking not "episodes", per TJ Spyke. "I don't know what to do". Well, I do... --Thorsten1 10:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ermmm... Keep. Dwdmang 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP is not a paper encyclopedia.--Opark 77 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but WP is an encyclopedia and NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Bwithh 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A perfect example of what Wikipedia is not, that being an indiscriminate collection of information. Also borders on fancruft/markcruft. - Chadbryant 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Or at least move it to a wrestling oriented Wiki. Someone obviously spent a lot of time working on this, and it is well organized, I'd hate to see such dedication deleted. And besides, monthly results for pro wrestling is a pretty good idea to me.-User:Gruntyking117

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.