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. --Coredesat 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes[edit]

List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list page of a regular wrestling TV show isn't needed, and is simply fancruft. This should be put on a wrestling wiki, not here. There are no list of Raw episodes for a reason: not all are notable. Same goes for ECW, Impact and so on. RobJ1981 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's simply an episode guide like any other television show. I don't see a problem. If a complete RAW episode guide was attempted, I doubt anyone would object to that. TheNewMinistry 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There has been Impact and other wrestling show lists in the past, and all have gotten deleted. ECW shouldn't be the exception that stays. RobJ1981 06:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. But then why are there any episode guides at all for fiction-based television shows on Wikipedia?. You're trying to say that pro wrestling is somehow exempt from being a television show when ECW on Sci Fi is episodic just like any other series. How is an episode guide for this show in any way bad for Wikipedia? TheNewMinistry 06:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is like having an episode guide for Monday Night Football. Plus, previous RAW and iMPACT! result pages have been deleted as well. TJ Spyke 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But why were they deleted? TheNewMinistry 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they were fancruft and not very helpful. They would also become unwieldy. RAW, for example, has had 703 episodes. TJ Spyke 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source. Useful list that is not any different from other TV show lists. VegaDark 07:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you would want an episode guide for MNF or other sports shows? TJ Spyke 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a complete one were to be achievable I would welcome it. VegaDark 07:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per precendent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006. This is what I believ TJ was referring to. Edgecution 07:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I couldn't find that to present it. This article doesn't help anything, and this is the kind of fancruft that should only be on a wrestling based Wiki. TJ Spyke 07:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That "precedent" could have (and should have IMO) just as easily been closed as no consensus. VegaDark 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "No consenus"? The strong majority of those votes were "Delete" and the few "Keep" arguments were weak. Here is another precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Smackdown Results. It's pretty clear that this should be deleted as well. TJ Spyke 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A majority of 14-10-1 does not constitute a consensus in my book. As for the Smackdown one, it looks as if the entire reason it was nominated is because it was poorly written and had little to no context. Also, just because of past precedents doesn't mean we can't change our minds. VegaDark 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)***[reply]
          • It's not just votes, it's the arguments made in them. This type of article exists for the same reason we don't have episoded guides for news shows or reality shows or other sports. TJ Spyke 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The arguments made for keeping were more persuasive from my point of view. Let me quote someone from the TNA AfD that nobody responded to: 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. VegaDark 08:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointless. Random collection of information. Fancruft. -- THL 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft, listcruft, pointless list. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with Terence; this is unencyclopedic listcruft. Eusebeus 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not TV guide or a show program, this is an encyclopedia. Delete per not being encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike PPV articles, which reference important events, a list of match results of a weekly wrestling TV show isn't important. Any notible events from these shows will be mentioned in the person's article. 131.230.135.105 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont know if this even classifies as cruft Killerhun00 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's nothing particularly remarkable about the individual episodes for them to be listed. I'm not a huge fan of having episode guides (lists of episodes and individual articles on episodes) of any television show on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Wizardman 16:41, 19 November 2006 (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.