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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE)[edit]

List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

OR, listcruft, redundant info that will become dated. In general, a non-notable page that only has meaning to hardcore wrestling fans. Prod was removed. Booshakla 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Convoluted, nn, not important in scope Biggspowd 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete There is some precedent for this sort of thing (i.e., "Category: World Wrestling Entertainment teams and stables", List of professional wrestling stables, etc.). However, ECW Originals already serves such a purpose and, in addition, is a much better done article. Soltak | Talk 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or failing that, better to merge to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) than to keep, especially under this title with the parent brand name in paren's. Arguments in the nomination were mostly correct. Fans will probably want to cite glossy magazine(s) that happen to be published by WWE's owners or shell companies, and aren't independent enough to pass the guideline on reliable sources to meet the verifiability policy. This may be a season-long WWE/MTV plot to transfer a group of old veterans and get some story out of it; if so, the entertainment mags (yecch) will be covering it enough for tiny-edge-of-notability. If the described scene were real, we would have heard in the real world about Vince McMahon being hospitalized and perhaps buried; instead, his new golden boy got mobbed and thrown around. From a Google search, I found that "prowrestlingblog.com" (not a WP:RS) has a 2006/06/29 article about McMahon taking more creative control over the ECW. The stuff described in the list that's nominated for deletion is part of a longer-term publicly-noted story about the takeover and McMahon's ways, but it's of low enough significance-within-topic to be worthy of merging, not a standalone article, under WP:SPORT or WP:FICT or whatever guidelines you think should apply. (After edit conflict) Soltak is right, ECW Originals doesn't appear to need anything from this article, so I struck some of my comment. Barno 01:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not original research (it's just a list of people who wrestled in the ECW promotion and now in the ECW brand), but it is cruft and would only shrink over time. TJ Spyke 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More of the above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per nomination. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced, likely original research To be fair, I think it would be interesting in the ECW main article to make a mention of the notable personalities who were in both the original ECW promotion and at the launch of the new WWE version of the ECW brand. It would provide some historical connection between the two, at least at the time that the newly remade brand began. However, this particular article appears to be unreferenced and also seems to get into some original research and analysis of the brand. Probably best to delete this article and put any verifiable info in the main ECW article. Dugwiki 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Make this a category. --UsaSatsui 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki as lacking proof of notability. Inkpaduta 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something, I specifically didn't say the info wasn't "notable". I said it was unreferenced and has original research, and has no additional analysis or encyclopedic content. I'm not claiming that the overall general topic is or isn't potentially "notable". Dugwiki 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). This is notable information and not, as some unfamiliar with the material claim, "original research", but it's not worthy of its own article. -Drdisque 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the page on the stable at ECW Originals (which itself contains a list of current and former members) is good enough. We don't need information other ECW alumnus that are not on the ECW brand (or even in WWE).
• Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Govvy 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agreed that the ECW Originals page is more than adequate. Suriel1981 23:18, 18 February 2007 (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.