Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2009 Pepsi Center double-booking controversy

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 merge to Pepsi Center. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 Pepsi Center double-booking controversy[edit]

No notability show whatsoever. iMatthew : Chat 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable. And has received a lot of media attention lately. Brady4mvp (Talk) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is to redirect to the section on it at Pepsi Arena. This situation received a huge amount of mainstream attention though, including almost every sports show and site in the US. Hell, I have seen articles on kidnapping victims that got less coverage than this. So I could go either way. TJ Spyke 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing more than an overblown story where Vince is trying to get as much publicity from it as possible. Does not need its own article. A note in the Pepsi Center and the History of World Wrestling Entertainment will do fine.--WillC 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Pepsi Center. If expanded, the bulk of the article would deal with the media reaction and Vince McMahon's publicity attempts because the controversy itself was relatively simple and not deserving of an individual article. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Pepsi Center and WWE. Teh Shingen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This happens all the time; see the many times at the Metrodome where the Gophers and Twins have fun playing with their schedules around MLB playoff time, and when the Dolphins had to move games because the Marlins were on their way to or in the World Series, and 9/11, where the National Automobile Dealers Association had to shuffle their convention around because the Super Bowl was delayed to when they'd have their convention. The bottom line is, playoff games always beat smaller events. This is in almost every booking contract, and this certainly is no different. It's just that Vince McMahon doesn't like losing a date if he doesn't have to and isn't happy about it. Mention on the Pepsi Center and WWE articles is just fine. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the situations you described got much, if any, coverage in the press. The WWE/Pepsi Arena situation got covered in just about every national publication that includes sports coverage and tons of TV shows including SportsCenter, Around the Horn, and Pardon the Interruption among others (and real coverage, not just passing mention). The fact that the Pepsi Center is looking at a possible lawsuit (since WWE legally had the arena that night, the Nuggets never held the arena in case they made it this far in the playoffs) adds to it. TJ Spyke 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because it was the WWE which drew the short straw. If this was a group like Disney on Ice, a national touring circus, an Arena Football game or concert tour (like even the Jonas Brothers), the prinicples would talk behind the scenes, make the proper arrangements and payments for shuffling everything around and make an announcement in a quiet press release that 'event B has been moved to accomodate event A on date B'. Vince McMahon meanwhile is at the heart of everything a showman. He knew this would get publicity and rode the train all the way to the station with hyperbole. Denver will quietly get a new RAW date, the WWE will be welcomed back with open arms and the Pepsi Center management will reap probable heavy attendance and concessions sales.

As for your assertion that it got heavy mention on all those ESPN shows...they need something to fill 3-4 minutes, and this is perfect to talk about. There's no other reason this is on ESPN's radar other than it beats talking about how bad the Cubs are doing or rehashing how echoy Yankee Stadium's empty seats are once again. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - WWE is a huge draw, all those other ones would not get as much attention and they would have just left. WWE actually could have just held firm and told the arena that they were gonna hold Raw in the Pepsi Arena and legally the Nuggest wouldn't have been able to do anything since WWE had a signed contract for tonight while the Nuggets didn't. WWE didn't ask for all the free publicity, but it's obvious they welcome it (since otherwise the mainstream media wouldn't care where Raw is on any given week). As for your second comment, the only reason some shows cover these kidnappings to get articles is because talking about a cute blond teenager being kidnapped fills up time. This has received a significant amount of real coverage. This article passes all 5 general criteria of WP:N and thus should be kept. Maybe those voting Delete should show how it's not notable. TJ Spyke 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please find us other sources then, other than ESPN and wrestling fan sites. I didn't see one mention of this on the major news sites or news channels at all, and more likely than not if it was covered in Denver it was more of the 'Ticketholders for Monday's event can redeem their tickets for a full refund at the box office or retain them for a future event' variety than 'Vince McMahon is never, ever coming back to the state of Colorado again unless the Pepsi Center apologizes for being a big meanie to him'. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, well sourced, and a precedent maker.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable situation. It has received a significant amount of mainstream coverage. TJ Spyke 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My biggest problem with this article is that it is likely going to end up being more about the media response and tonight's episode of Raw more than it will be about the actual controversy. The current "The Denver Debacle" section is pretty much all that is needed, and could easily be merged into the Raw and/or Pepsi Center and/or History of World Wrestling Entertainment articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do think the article can be improved, there is more information out there about the actual situation around the event that just needs to be added. If Vince really does go through with a lawsuit like he has said he is considering I think that would add even more reasons to have the article. TJ Spyke 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is enough sources out there, but not enough information. This article will be left alone as soon as everything is over. We don't need another article that everyone (fanboy wrestling fans who think everything down to a win over a jobber is notable) thinks is important but will soon just be left there to sit and become nothing more than another stub. As it is now, the article has enough information that can make one little note in the History of WWE article. As I see it, we don't need another article that no one will work on to get anywhere other than C at highest.--WillC 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Its just a double booking, its happened before with other venues before. A section in the Pepsi Center and/or in the History of World Wrestling Entertainment will suffice. --Tru co 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the first time this has happened (like Mrschimpf said, this happens to the Metrodome all the time and it's a one-liner at best in the newspaper the next day), not the last time this will happen. WP:NOT#NEWS, just because ESPN fell in love with the story and McMahon's complaining to every reporter who'll listen to him doesn't mean we have to give it an article. By all means mention in the appropriate places (Pepsi Center, an appropriate WWE article, 2009 NBA Playoffs if anyone can find a logical spot, etc.) but right now I don't see the justification for an article. BryanG (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Metrodome comparison is not the same. For one thing, that gets maybe a 1 paragraph mention in the local Minneapolis newspaper. This has received significant amount of coverage in virtual every major newspaper and news site and on TV. I also doubt any of the Metrodome bumps were of a contractually booked event being illegally bumped. No Wikipedia is not a news site, but do you really think stuff like solar eclipses or half of the stuff at Portal:Current events deserve articles? TJ Spyke 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I'll be personally shocked if Pepsi Center's lawyers were stupid enough not to put an out clause in their contract with the WWE, but that's besides the point. I don't see how my opinion on solar eclipses is germane here, and this is not on the level of items at Portal:Current events. Of course we're going to have articles on elections, hurricanes, major sporting events, etc. that are reported in the news. Also, I'm not seeing "virtually every major newspaper" here; for example, all I got out of a search of the New York Times is a short blurb at the bottom of a game preview. This whole thing smacks of recentism. My point about the Metrodome is that this is not a unique or even particularly rare incident that might indicate some notability. Of course if McMahon actually goes through with a lawsuit and the courts produce a new precedent, then that might warrant coverage, but that's not happened yet and it's just as likely there'll just be a quiet, behind-the-scenes settlement in a week when the media's moved on. BryanG (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a comment on the precedent remark, what would the new precedent be? Kroenke breached their contract, a lawsuit would be pretty much open and shut with Kroenke clearly losing. It would be shocking if he won. TJ Spyke 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That part's more-or-less assuming that Pepsi Center's lawyers weren't idiots and put an out clause in the contract, but a judge rules against them anyway. If Pepsi Center's lawyers were idiots then I imagine you'd be right... BryanG (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why this shouldn't of been kept on the Pepsi Center. Afkatk (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this rates a paragraph in Pepsi Center. I can't imagine that this will ever get more than a footnote mention, if it's even mentioned at all, even a year from now. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received national attention. It's a legitimate event. Philname1 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does it have to have it own page just put it under WWE history Supermike (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is very notable and should have its own page. Pavlen (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE --86.152.111.209 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Pepsi Centre or WWE. --86.152.111.209 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Forgot to log in --Numyht (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable garbage. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I say merge all that's on this article page with the Pepsi Center article and redirect this one to that section on the page and leave it that way. Cra sh Underride 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minus the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling note. This was about the Nuggets and WWE, thus TNA is not notable. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the controversy is certainly semi-noteworthy in the history of the Pepsi Center, it doesn't yet have a larger overall significance that would justify its own entry. Barring a lawsuit, this only stands as a minor blip at most in the overall histories of both WWE and the Denver Nuggets, hardly worthy of distinct notice. EvWill (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - It's notable, yes. High profile? Yes. But is it worthy of an article all to itself? No. A mention in the Pepsi Center article, or even 2009 NBA Playoffs/Denver Nuggets Season article would be far more appropriate. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some appropriate article. There just isn't that much to this story -- an event was scheduled for an NBA arena that turned out to conflict with a basketball playoff game, so the other event was moved. I doubt that it will seem like that big a controversy in the long run. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Storm in a teacup which is nothing more than VKM trying to make headlines. We are not a commercial arm of WWE, so delete it. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be good-- NBA Finals! Denver trailing Orlando 117-116! Carmelo's at the line, gotta make both shots! First one's good... then Vince McMahon runs on the court, security in close pursuit, shouting "I'll double-book YOU!" Oh wait, that's June 2009 Pepsi Center incident. Mandsford (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pepsi Center is my gut feeling. Thanks, gENIUS 101 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While it has received 'national attention', I really do doubt it is going to become a notable event even in six months. So what, a stadium was double booked? We ain't news and the notability of this event certainly won't be lasting. Merge for the same reason we list aircraft incidents without articles on airport pages - it's somewhat relevant to the center's article. The editors can then decide what to trim and keep there. ∗ \ / {talk} 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletether utter essence of trivia and violation of NOT NREWS. Nothing worth merging. DGG (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pepsi Center. I hardly think this is important or significant enough to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Pepsi Center. While I think this event is notable, and deserves to be covered, there's just not enough to say about it to justify a separate article; it would better be covered as a subsection of that one. (I guess this can be considered a Keep !vote, but only for as long as it takes for the article to be merged.) Robofish (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pepsi Center. I've read most of the arguments, and it doesn't seem to be worthy of its own article. For what publicity Vince McMahon got from it, the skit was boring on RAW anyway. NathanJ1979 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pepsi Center. No need for a stand alone article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a news item at best. If there's somewhere else a briefer version of the content should go, then do that, but I'm not in favor of "merging" as what's relevant about this could be related in one paragraph or less. Croctotheface (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pepsi Center. These booking conflicts happen on occasion, with not as much publicity. I argue there are only two reasons this page even exists: first, Vince McMahon is a publicity hound and he milked it for all it was worth, and second, there was a lack of communication between WWE and the NBA over available dates. McMahon's blame of Stan Kroenke is wrong; he should have blamed the NBA office. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (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.