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. - Philippe 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of TNA tournaments[edit]

This page seems to contain information on non-notable tournaments held by TNA. iMatthew 2008 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. - DrWarpMind (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List cruft. --Endless Dan 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's NOT listcuft WP:Listcruft. SunCreator (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dunno, there's something like 100% blue-link in there, which suggests that the tournaments are not quite so non-notable as all of that, and even if they were, WP:LIST does not require everything listed to pass the notability standards for a stand-alone article. TNA is a major wrestling promotion. Would the nom care to proffer a valid policy ground to delete? RGTraynor 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fails notability. iMatthew 2008 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The claim for non-notability is incredibly specious given most wrestling pages - especially since wrestling is built upon half-truths. Regardless, the tournaments referenced have been part of TNA storylines, visible on TV, PPV and released DVDs. Claming non-notability is thus silly. The tournaments don't fit nicely into individual pages - some spanning different shows, PPV events over weeks. On that level, it's clearly notable. My rationale for only a week keep is that the page definitely needs improvement - sourcing et al. Minkythecat (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional edit: the only argument for deletion is that it's a list of links. The counter-argument is simple; all these tournaments relate to a specific wrestling company.Putting into main TNA article eads to bloat. Minkythecat (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the tournaments are non-notable, then why do most of them seem to have articles? Maxa megalon 2000 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is another nomination that was badly done. A bot had to complete the nomination. The reason for the nomination is not appropriate either. The nominator did not argued that the list itself is non-notable. Instead, the nominator instead argued that this is a list of non-notable tournaments, effectively asking us to pass judgment not only on this list but each and every one of those tournaments that also have an article here on wikipedia. If any of the tournaments are not notable, then the article for the tournament should be nominated for deletion and not this list. I also feel that this is a hasty nomination. A more appropriate response to this list would be to tag it with the ((notability)) tag instead, voice any concerns at the talk page and allow some time for other editors to improve the quality of the article. I will furthermore point out that WP:Listcruft is not a valid reason for deletion as that is merely an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. --Bardin (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I see no reason to delete it. Vermon CaTaffy 8 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 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.