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. Consensus is clear after relisting. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw 1000[edit]

WWE Raw 1000 (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)

Although the page is heavily sourced all of the sourcing is WP:ROUTINE. Based on it being 4 years since the last AfD nothing has proven to be WP:LASTING. All relevant information is already included at List of WWE Raw special episodes. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect I find it hard to believe that this happened six years ago and that the last discussion (which I took part in) was four years ago. Time flies! But with the passage of time I think we have a better understanding of notability. My googling hasn't come up with any extensive coverage since. Unlike pay-per-views, which are almost always notable, I don't see any mentions in books, or even many post-2012 online sources. This was simply a special episode of Raw, so the redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes is appropriate.LM2000 (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Four of the citations specifically mention the 1000th episode in the title. This recognition by Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Pro Wrestling Torch helps assert notability. The writeup in the New York Times source also helps make the episode's significance clear, as it generated the largest television audience in a decade (i.e. the highest ratings since the Attitude Era). The storylines are significant enough to warrant their own article--for example, the setup to the Lita-Slater match was over a month. Many series have individual articles for each episode. While Raw does not, there is no reason not to split off an article when there is sufficient information and multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing you have mentioned is arguments for its own article. Everything you have mentioned can be summarized in a few sentences in the List of WWE Raw special episodes article as mentioned above. What is lost in a redirec? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT source is a short blurb which only mentions the TV ratings, which are important to the event's impact but far from the only important thing. The local newspaper source may constitute substantial coverage but is similar to what kind of write-up would be found before an event in my local newspaper, since WWE only comes here every four or five years nowadays (they originally came twice a year or thereabouts). Neutral on the AFD as I don't have the time to look over all the sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Entirely notable episode of Raw arguably one of the most notable in the history of the program. Well sourced and nothing "routine" about the sourcing at all. Cena's Money in the Bank cash in was notable in that it was the first failure of said cash in. This is a significant single event and deserves an article of it's own. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or eventually redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes. Notability is not met despite the WP:REFBOMBING. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Are we really gonna fight this again? The event at the time was promoted like a WWE PPV event. It was a supercard on basic cable. The sourcing supports that, and that's why it was kept in the first place. The nominator's insinuation that it doesn't have lasting impact can be applied to a lot of WWE PPVs. But let's avoid an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Rather, the point remains that it has the sourcing to remain it's own article. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 04:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage from likes of EW and USA Today (and coverage for its ratings). Although there is a lot of primary/passing/unneccessary mentions that needs to be cleaned up as this article was under clear WP:REFBOMBING. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has significant covrrage in reliable sources such as EW and USToday as mentioned above, so is independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 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.