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. The only reason cited in favor of deletion was WP:LISTCRUFT which is an essay and as such does not reflect community consensus. Our deletion policy requires policy-based reasons for deletion though and such reasons have not been mentioned. As such the outcome cannot be anything else than keep (see also WP:ITSCRUFT for a longer explanation why simply saying something is "cruft", without further explanation based on policies and guidelines why this is a reason for deletion, is not a good argument in favor of deletion). Regards SoWhy 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts[edit]

List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable cruft, akin to a article like "List of Saturday Night Live guests". A IP removed the PROD with no explanation. TJ Spyke 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Good search item. Enough reliable sources are in existence to sustain notability, however the issue of listcruft could be debatable. Either kept as a seperate article or moved to WWE Raw is how I feel it should go down. Now maybe turning it in a prose section of WWE Raw with the list would be nice.--WillC 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info has been deletd from the Raw article several times precisely because its listcruft. The general agreement was to include mention of the guest host idea and a link to WWE's page on it. TJ Spyke 16:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with WWE Raw. Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT on it's own, but I don't think it should be deleted outright. !! Justa Punk !! 04:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TJ Spyke. You are exactly right, we don't have a List of Saturday Night Live guests because that would be ridiculous. Might I remind you, we are an ENCYCLOPEDIA people. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Justa Punk.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Also per Justa Punk. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Also per Justa Punk. Armbrust (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is the problem with merging and why it shouldn't be done (at least with the Raw article, although it shouldn't be merged anywhere): it opens up a floodgate. These guest hosts are no different than any other acting and 1-night GMs. You would have to add in the Spirit Squad, Maven, Randy Orton, that Make-A-Wish kid, etc. Basically anyone who was made GM for the night. Take a look at Professional wrestling authority figures#Temporary General Managers for all the people. The GM list on Raw should only list people who were full time GM, not one night. TJ Spyke 15:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per TJ Spyke Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - notability is easily established with reliable sources; expanding the article to give information about the reason, the effect on ratings, the promotion, the Donald Trump "purchase" and resulting false press release, would make for a very useful non-crufty article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, I agree with Gary. Couldn't have said it better myself, and that is true because I failed to above.--WillC 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been done by now or while being nominated. Right now I don't see how anyone can think the article should be kept, its nothing more than a table of the guest hosts. TJ Spyke 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and recall that this is for a show that is not known for Guest Hosts which has garnered considerable promotion.--WillC 01:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good time to re-read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it. The fact that is hasn't yet been improved is a surmountable problem and not a good reason to delete. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to giv your opinion on the current state of the article. Based on the pathetic article, I don't see how anyone can say Keep, and the only original material here is cruft. TJ Spyke 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is keeping the List of Authority Figures tidy by putting all of the participants into one entry and avoids the issue raised by TJ. Flyingcandyman (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Same as Gary's reason was above.--WillC 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to TJ Spyke: You definitely do not have you give an opinion based on the current state of the article. In fact, it is harmful to Wikipedia to do so, and the instructions on the main AfD page remind editors that "the potential of the topic should be considered" (emphasis added). If the subject is notable, the subject is notable, regardless of whether the article currently has sufficient sources to establish notability. The purpose of deletion discussions is not to get rid of bad articles, but rather to delete articles without potential. If the potential exists for an article to become worthwhile and establish notability, it should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the potential in this article. It's cruft now and I don't see it being more. Someone can work on it on a sandbox, then propose it be re-created. TJ Spyke 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't see the potential, please see my comment from 00:53, 13 December 2009. There is no valid reason to delete the article, as it meets the notability guidelines. The "cruft" argument is easily dismissed, as WP:CRUFT defines the term as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". Based on the mainstream media coverage (Trump's purchase, ZZ Top's hosting, etc.), this obviously doesn't qualify as cruft. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TJ Spyke. Also the list is an orphan nothing really goes with it and you could just go on and on with this list and it's cruft. Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Add-on Also not really important.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Do you have any valid arguments, per WP:AFD? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did, and I could ask the same to those saying Keep. TJ Spyke 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the notability of this can easily be established, publications of details listed here can easily be referenced by Magazines, Newspapers and Sites in and out of the Professional Wrestling Business, this article can also be vastly expanded on I'm sure. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but people can do that on sandboxes. TJ Spyke 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with the idea of doing it on the article? Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe because it's CRUFT? It's the same reason articles on people get deleted and the article creator told they can continue working on it in a sandbox and later submit it to be re-created. The article is nothing more than a list of hosts, it's no more notable than any other show with guests (I could probably find more sources for SNL hosts than this article, maybe the same for guests on talkshows). TJ Spyke 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand the opening argument, given Saturday Night Live hosts. I know, wp:OSE, but using the lack of something as an argument falls flat when the something actually exists. I won't argue that WWE is in the same league as SNL. However, the potential for the WWE list to be more than a raw list is there—editors should be encouraged to follow the SNL model and beef up the article.--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do plan to work on the article and not just on the sourcing, I feel much more can be said about how this began what impact some of the Hosts have had on the stories (eg Cuban getting put through a Table was a part of the build up to the TLC PPV, and there has been some documentation on the ratings which can be meddled about with, overall I would think this can be improved dramatically. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sphil, the SNL article talks about the record for most times hosting, youngest host, the importance they place on the host, etc. It's not a list everyone who has hosted the show. TJ Spyke 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although !votes are discouraged, it seems to me that when the reason for deletion is specifically cited as a poor argument for deletion discussions, there has been no proper assertion that the article should be deleted, and therefore there is no reason to expound on a keep !vote. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you are not familiar with AFD's, let me explain something. The nomination reason is valid, and the closing admin will usually ignore comments like yours (which are just votes with no reason given). TJ Spyke 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reckon I know a little more about AfD than you do. You do realize that WP:ITSCRUFT leads to a page called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, right? And while we're at it, you do realize badgering every !keep voter isn't helping your nomination, and makes you look like a brat, right? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really care anymore. If it keeps the cruft off of the WWE Raw and Professional wrestling authority figures pages, then fine. TJ Spyke 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a nominator withdrawl, can someone close this then? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's not. I think you'll find that TJ is tired of arguing with people who clearly in my opinion don't understand WP:LISTCRUFT. !! Justa Punk !! 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, you mean that opinion essay that isn't even a guideline let alone a policy? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You're not making any sense.--Curtis23 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It shows a list of every guest host that has been general manager for WWE Raw for the night. The Spirit Squad, Maven, that Make-a-Wish kid and anyone else who has been a guest host for one night that is not listed, should be listed as they were guest host, not from when Mr. McMahon started the guest host for the night at the end of June of 2009. If the argument is that every guest host shouldn't be listed because there isen't a list of guest hosts on SNL, then the list of General Managers, Color Cominators, and Announsers on the WWE Raw page should be deleted as well. If the List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts page gets deleted, the list of General Managers, Color Cominators, and Announsers on the WWE Raw page should be deleted as well. Gibsonj338 (talk) 06:40, 22 December 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.