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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Over the Limit (2011). The "keep" !voters haven't really addressed the issue of WP:CRYSTAL. But it would be kind of silly to delete it six weeks before the event, so let's incubate it until it happens. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Limit (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable future sports event, references are simply listings of the event, nothing to indicate notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's scheduled to happen in what, six weeks? What's the point of deleting it now? It would be more productive to tag it, wait six weeks, and see if enough press was generated. After all, it should be trivially easy to make a decision after the fact. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand it might be considered more productive to create such an article in main space after the event, if it wre proven to be notable. Before the event it looks rather like spam, if no references to establish notability were provided. Perhaps it would be best to redirect to WWE Over the Limit. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we need to wait until after the event since we will have info about the matches and the events that led up to the matches. It may be best to redirect it at this point but I think recreation should happen before the show airs. I don't see why this should be different than future shows, movies, books, video games etc (none of which only have articles after their release)--76.66.187.132 (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If we wait until after an event to decide to delete an article, Wikipedia would be (more) littered with every album release, movie, book, event, goat roping and other garbage because we want to "wait to see if it becomes notable". The whole idea is it must be notable BEFORE an article is created, and the guidelines here make that crystal clear. If it isn't notable, it doesn't need to be here, no matter how notable it MIGHT BE in the future. I'm tired of hearing that same tired excuse in AFD from people who won't take the time to read the guidelines and at least attempt to make a valid argument. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BALL Agree with Dennis Brown... waiting to see if something becomes notable results in embarrassments like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Tide (album) (2nd nomination) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep Keep This event will take place in a month and a half, what's the point of deleting. Tickets are on sale at Ticketmaster.com [1] and at KeyArena's website [2] so why delete.--Voices in my Head WWE 20:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There event is not notable now, and regardless that it is scheduled soon we cannot assume that it will be notable in the future - frankieMR (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete as per the precedent set with Sacrifice (2011). If no notability can be established....NXT Fan (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when has future notability for a pay-per-view event been a reason to delete? And why is it...why is it you all are talking about deleting an article? For God sakes don't you idiots have better things to do than sit in front of a computer all day?--Voices in my Head WWE 20:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you haven't actually presented a case for its notability. Do you have a link to a reliable third party source? That would count as notability. Also, there's no need to refer to people with a different take to yours as "you idiots". NXT Fan (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a confirmed WWE pay per view event. All confirmed WWE pay per view events are notable. It would only fail the test of notability if it was not confirmed, like "Capital Punishment" which is supposedly taking the place of Fatal Four Way. If someone can provide proof that it's not confirmed I'll change my vote. Ultra X987 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you deleted Sacrifice (2011) which is the same thing on Over the limit page Zanwifi (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It'll be created in under a month anyway, so there's no WP:CRYSTAL violation. In the case of PPVs such as these, third-party sources would become more frequent after it takes place, it wouldn't be posted when there's still the April PPV to wrap up just yet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as every WWE PPV is a highly notable event. Just because there are no strong sources as of yet, that shouldn't be a reason to delete it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is being discussed here is whether the article meets the general notability guideline or the sports guidelines. Opinions as to whether it is notable without sources are irrelevant. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your stupid bullshit reasoning every future WWE PPV article isn't notable. WWE PPV's are always notable. So notable that we always have to lock the damn pages because of vandalism and unhelpful edits.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite apart from the issue at hand(whether the article meets or fails to meet the notability guidelines) is it really necessary for this person to keep making comments like "you idiots" and "your stupid bullshit reasoning"? NXT Fan (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it would be helpful if everyone would remain WP:CIVIL in this discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It will probably be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies here. This article contains little information aside from what professional wrestling is and when/where it is being held. Once some matches get confirmed at least, then I can see it getting an article. ScottSteiner ✍ 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys not realize that WWE focuses on one PPV at a flipping time. There's already another WWE PPV event just 7 days away so of course attention isn't on Over The Limit YET DUMBASSES.--Voices in my Head WWE 18:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this latest abuse at WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:Nascarking. I note that this user has also been reported for canvassing on this AfD at WP:ANI#Repeated canvassing for AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to ScottSteiner, the thing is that the above (matches added) will happen in about a week, since that's when the current PPV will occur. We'll basically end up deleting this article only to recreate it maybe a week later, which just seems like wasting time on both sides to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is a colossal waste of time, especially if this article gets deleted. Someone will just remake it, word for word, on May 2nd when WWE starts promoting the event on TV and making the matches. Then we involve ANI, WQA, a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL votes that will be completely be moot in six days, and we have a useless AFD. I'm not sorry that I'm calling this AFD pointless because that is the truth. Don't call the Wikiquette police on me as well. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly, not yet notable. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to provide a verifiable, encyclopaedic article at this time. Per WP:CRYSTAL.  Chzz  ►  04:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, third party sources like PW Torch are covering Extreme Rules this Sunday which means of course their not gonna have anything on this yet. Can we at least wait till next Monday, they will announce matches for Over the Limit next Monday. WWE does their storylines one PPV at a time, that's how they've always done it.--Voices in my Head WWE 05:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect redircting would be better then deleting Redirect to WWE Over the Limit--SteamIron 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting that Over The Limit redirects to Trout Fishing in America (band), perhaps a disambiguation is required - frankieMR (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not until this event is notable enough to have an article. Later, yes, possibly/probably.  Chzz  ►  22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait - there is WWE Over the Limit - so, yes, we could disambig it. Or just hatnote, if there's only the 2?  Chzz  ►  22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge does seem the best idea. I'm a big fan of pro wrestling entertainment with tremendous athletic prowess, but I don't see why each and every PPV needs its own article. NXT Fan (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you absolutely must delete an article that will be notable in like one week, please userify so that we can copy-paste the exact same article once it starts getting promoted on May 2nd, SIX DAYS, on WWE Monday Night RAW. Otherwise, Keep as utterly pointless nomination. All of these people commenting, including myself, shouldn't have to deal with AFD noms like this that will be rendered completely moot in less than a week. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the love of god, why would you delete this event a week before it starts getting promoted? Crisis.EXE 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to establish its notability? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because users should not disregard policies and then say "oh, well, it will be notable soon, so now it is here, why not just wait a while?" - as happened last October with Survivor Series (2010), WWE Bragging Rights (2010), as has happened with many others since, and as is happening now with WWE Capitol Punishment - all of which waste an inordinate amount of time. Because Wikipedia does not have articles on non-notable topics. Because we do not promote events that, to date, are not notable - we do not advertise. And because Wikipedia discussions should be evaluated according to rational arguments referring to policies and guidelines, and not affected by mere loud, vocal appeals from large quantities of fans. Please respect consensus and policy.  Chzz  ►  02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, you DO realize that there are tons of unsourced articles out there, right? Most are probably not notable, yet here they sit with few (if any) taggings on them.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; please help fix it.  Chzz  ►  16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon deletion, I nominate you, Chzz, to rewrite this article from scratch when it clearly meets all notability requirements on May 2nd. Three days. Three goddamn days. This is one of the most pointless AFDs I've ever participated in. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to try to help with that, if there are enough reliable sources - give me a shout on my user talk page. I'm sorry you think this is pointless; I do too. But so were all the previous incidents - and I really don't want Wikipedia to advertise non-notable(yet) future events.  Chzz  ►  16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:It should be noted that, even after all of the above, including some pretty bad violations of WP:CIVIL, there is yet to be one WP:RS added to this discussion... NXT Fan (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion on this article is pointless. Monday on RAW they'll be moving on to Over the Limit and render all these deletion comments pointless.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a notable PPV date with a venue booked and a poster promoting it. Plus televised promotion will start later today during the Extreme Rules PPV. Hardly worth taking it down and then restarting it. Steveweiser (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have a Reliable Source for any of that? This is not a vote. It is a discussion as to whether the article meets Notability and whether there are Reliable Sources to verify that Notability. Thus far you're 0-2. NXT Fan (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WWE's next PPV, which will be held in 3 weeks. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:33, 1 May 2011 (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.