- 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List of current professional wrestling champions (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)
Not notable, original search HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not notable. Champions in pro wrestling? Well, we should talk about ALL active championships in THE ENTIRE world in ALL promotions, BTW more than 100. With all mexicans, japanese and american titles, we're talking about 1000 titles. Second, original search. The author created a list with the current world champions in major promotions, deleted by other user because it's original search. the user put the promotions he thinks are major. Why not AJPW or WWC? Also, are ROH and NWA major promotions? Original search. Looks like the user tryed to create his own world heavyweight championship list. Also, unsourced. (PWI, a magazine is the only source) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your "delete" as duplicative of your nomination, as formatting your subsequent comment in this way gives the false impression that another editor is separately supporting your nomination. postdlf (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, perhaps even speedy delete. We've had discussions like this in the past about List of professional wrestling world champions. Pro Wrestling isn't a competitive sport, at least not in the traditional sense, and has no oversight committees. Therefore, any backyard group can label their strap a world championship without being challenged. Other wrestling promotions may or may not recognize the title as being a world championship and wrestling media (such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated) may or may not recognize it, but there is no objective criteria. As an encyclopedia we have no authority on this matter. We cannot decide which championships are major or minor. However, if we were to list every championship from every promotion in existence then we would have a very unmanageable list on our hands. The best thing to do, and what we have agreed in the past, is to delete lists like this.LM2000 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a list of notable champions held by notable people from notable promotions. The inclusion criteria would clearly be notable promotions - IE they have an article here. Looking at the List of professional wrestling promotions, there aren't really that many current promotions. Unsourced? WP:SOFIXIT. It can't be that hard to source. By looking down the list, may of them seem to have sub-lists of champions by belt, which as Featured Lists in their own right. "Original search"? Haha, no. Unmanageable list? Wrong again. And that's not a valid rationale for deletion either. Basically the two deletion nominations smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but restrict to notable championships and wrestlers. This page is useful for navigation, it's a list of Wikipedia articles, and it seems to meet WP:L. Arguments for deletion are based on what might happen to this page (e.g. it might become unmanageable) but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. The notability of a topic isn't based on whether it's a fair championship (otherwise we wouldn't have articles like Russian presidential election, 2012) but whether reliable sources write about it. Those proposing deletion claim that this has been decided by past precedent, but it would be nice if they'd provide links to precedent, rather than just asserting it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colapeninsula @Lugnuts About Original Search, it is when he said "major promotion" and "world championship". Project discussed and we haven't a definition about both therms, which are subjetive. About the number of promotions, with the templates about promotions in USA, Japán and Mexico, I count 79. Promotions like NWA or CMLL use a lot of titles, we're talking about near 300 titles. If you take a look on some independent promotions' articles, a lot of them aren't update. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean original research. I don't see any problem with this list. 79? Wow. Big numbers. Not unlike this list, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: - you pointed to List of current world boxing champions? That list has championships of five companies (one is a magazine though) with 17 weight classes, which theoretically equates to 85 champions listed. Earlier you pointed to active companies from the List of professional wrestling promotions, which I counted has 90-100 companies. Each company doesn't have one single title, but multiple. Usually one top singles title and one team title, optionally one or more secondary singles title, rarely one secondary team title, optionally one women's title. I'm not going to count the total number of champions but it's very likely we're looking at 300+ champions listed or even more. starship.paint "YES!" 10:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do most of those 300+ champions have articles (or are included in the promotion's article) on WP? Chances are they do, and therefore there are editors who'll be updating them individually to reflect who the current champion is. So having one master list can't be too much work, once the initial shell is setup. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually don't think that most of the 300 champions have articles. Take a look at the Canadian companies. 6 companies. 1/5, 2/5, 0/3, 0/0, 0/5 and 0/5. Total of 23 champions, 3 have articles. Setup is one thing. Keeping it continually updated is another - also, this is a current list - if it is not updated - it becomes factually inaccurate. The Pro Wrestling Wikiproject is understaffed I'm afraid, I think it'll be very, very hard for us (blue editors) to keep up. We're going to rely on IPs to keep the article factually accurate? starship.paint "YES!" 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We rely on all articles to be kept factually accurate. I don't see how this is any different. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For any other article which is not updated, it's usually missing information that doesn't render the current information in the article inaccurate. For any list of current ..., if new champions are not stated it is simply wrong and misleading to say that 'this guy is the current champion'. starship.paint "YES!" 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the whole problem. The used divided the promotions between majors and...? Then, he divided the championships (world and seconday). However, he didn't put all the promotions, only promotions he wanted and he didn't put all titles (WWE Tag Team, Divas?). The article is a mess, is incompleted. Also, if somebody takes a look on some indy promoions, he'll see a lot of titles aren't updates. Does somebody want to try? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments First, there is something called "assume good faith". I get the impression that HHH Pedigree isn't a native English speaker. Second, the aforementioned discussion can be found in the archives of WT:PW. I'm on my phone as opposed to a real computer, which means that it's more trouble than it's worth to dig up the link. That discussion focused on what criteria makes a championship a "world" championship. Strangely enough, we appear to be applying it to this discussion, even though the list's title says "champions" rather than "world champions". Third, after reading the list, I agree that SOFIXIT is the best approach to take. That isn't necessarily a keep vote, however. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia's seeming obsession with reflecting what's current may mirror the state of immediate-onset amnesia found just about everywhere else on the web, but it isn't entirely compatible with the goals of building an encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm not a native-English speaker. I use (usually) simple sentences and TV catchphrases. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the discussions was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 88#Again, What is a World Heavyweight Championship?. I invoked it because we've got a similar list to what we saw at List of professional wrestling world champions and World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) where, for some arbitrary reason, what some editor considers to be a major championship gets listed while others are not. At least the World Heavyweight Championship article made an attempt to list other world championships in some fashion (although it violated WP:NPOV if I remember correctly), this article lists seven and leaves it at that. Colapeninsula's argument would make sense if we could leave these seven companies were the only companies listed as that is easy enough to manage. But once you get 79 promotions, which pass the WP:GNG (rather important), each with many titles of their own, I think you're bound to have a mess of an article on your hands. There's probably a good reason why there isn't a general category for all wrestling championships without being divided into a number of subcategories (see Category:Professional wrestling championships). Splitting this into separate articles (list of professional wrestling midcard championships, list of professional wrestling womens championships, etc.) would be a better idea, but a flawed idea nonetheless, as we shot that idea down in the previous world heavyweight championship discussion.LM2000 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The idea of "champions" is confusing to me, in what might be respectable entertainment and a show of athleticism, but this is not on par with my normal association of "sports", where the winner isn't predetermined before the event. Let us be honest with ourselves here. It isn't about "fairness", it is about the reality of what the product is: as real as a soap opera. Fun to watch for many, but the ending was written days ago. To treat the list no different as baseball or football makes no sense and simply isn't a valid argument. To compare to fraudulent elections also makes no sense as the intent of some was to have a fair election. In wrestling, no participant is under the illusion they might win unless they were told so ahead of time. Treating as we do "any other sport" is the definition of "apples and oranges", they simply aren't the same. This would better be represented by a category if organization is needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "This would better be represented by a category if organization is needed.". Read WP:CLN. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this ends up kept, let's see what happens to the article in three months. We'll see ... 1) If all promotions with an article on Wikipedia are included, or just an apparently random selection of promotions like now; 2) Will the categorization get better, world champions are definitely a subset of singles champions, why are they in different categories? Why is the IWGP Heavyweight Championship a world championship but the ROH World Television Championship or an Intercontinental Championship isn't a world championship? 3) Where do the women's titles go? starship.paint "YES!" 12:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Simply because of the ridiculous notion that this is original research. Feedback ☎ 23:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument for keep? Michael22 decided to put only 7 promotion and we list more than 100. He decided by his own and subjective criteria divided in major promotions (NWA is a major promotion?) and world titles (NWA title is a world title? ROH? We decided it in the project). That's original REsearch. This is another list about world champions, but this time, he didn't complete the job and he expects we care about the list. In a few months (if somebody decided to complete the list with +300 active titles) the list will be a mess, because nobody cares about titles from small promotions, like WxW or the endless NWA territories, or Titles from Puerto Rico. Even the author deleted the article from his own list "articles I've created". The doesn't care about the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Based purely on notability, the topic is definitely notable. Your "nobody cares" argument is just as as flawed as your OR argument. If not 1 person cared, we wouldn't have the individual articles to begin with. The list requires cleanup and that includes adding more titles. But nothing here is original research. There is no original thoughts here. There is no made-up analysis to support a biased conclusion. There is nothing OR about this. Once this article is cleaned up and organized correctly, it could even become a FL. This article was nominated at AFD due to your misguided understanding of what WP:OR is about. Feedback ☎ 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- as I said, he decided to include some "major" promotions and "world " titles based in his own criteria. It is another try to create a list of world champions, which was deleted by the project.-HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A good example of "nobody cares" would be List of Yukon Quest competitors. That list hasn't been updated in several years and also has a handful of lesser issues, yet remains an FL. I live a short distance from the Yukon Quest trail and many of my neighbors are dog mushers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm willing to take on yet another task. That may be the important factor here. The Yukon Quest happens only once a year. Title changes in professional wrestling happen a lot more often. If it came down to you and you alone to keep the list from becoming outdated, would you stick with it? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what RadioKAOS says, Feedback. Nobody has even bothered to improve the article while it is facing AfD despite its issues of sourcing, categorization or lack of inclusion of all notable promotions with an article on Wikipedia. Feedback, are you or any other keep voters willing to constantly keep tabs and source for on 90+ promotions to keep it factually accurate? starship.paint "YES!" 23:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete I went back and forth on this for a little bit. By and large, I find myself agreeing on one point with the nominator and I agree a lot with LM2000. I disagree that it's original research and think that assertion is preposterous, and in that regard agree with Feedback. So in the end, I have to say either reform this list in to a disam page linking to the respective promotions' championship lists or just do away with it. It doesn't have the same purpose as a list of Boxing champions or MMA champions would. Mainly because the varying degrees of credibility with fans and world wide recognition. It's an unnecessary page to maintain and keep up to date. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 05:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rearrange. Should be split either by company then by singles/team or by Singles/team and then not subdivided into world etc. Will require maintenance but tagging with categories will make that easier. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2014 (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.