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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Championship[edit]

Triple Crown Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm likely to get a huge amount of backlash for this, but this is not a really notable article. Half of this article looks like (or rather is) rumours. This supposed championship is not real, I've never seen this championship. Also, WWE, TNA or ECW wrestlers are not referred to as Triple Crown Champions, I've never heard JR say He's a triple crown Champion. Pure fancruft, and speculation. Nobody even refers to this. Davnel03 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I appreciate that a great deal of work has gone into this article, it has largely served as a battleground for opinionated claims about what constitutes the accolade in question. Many of the combinations listed on the page are "unofficial" or "arguable" and are thus non-notable. The Triple Crown undoubtedly did exist in as much as it was referred to by commentators and wrestlers for a brief period of time over a decade ago, but the commitment to maintaing an up-to-date list of "Triple Crown Champions", the vast majority of whom have never been formally acknowledged as bearing that title, is clearly fancruft. McPhail 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article is not based on rumours, it's based on fact. Shawn Michaels is an acknowledged Triple Crown champion, as are Kurt Angle (whose achievement was recognised when he was released by WWE, not a decade ago) and Triple H. The Merits of the US title claim is a seperate matter and has been the most controversial, however those who have World, Tag and IC titles are well known as Triple Crown champions. It is a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Darrenhusted 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am torn. I think it should be kept, but clean-up. Remove unofficial Triple Crown's (like ECW and OVW), and find a way (like voting) to determine if the US Title should be included. TJ Spyke 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UNIMAGINABLY STRONG DELETE - this article is almost entirely unsourced. Unless sources can be found, it must be deleted, or these disputed will continue and neither side will be proven right on top of the already blatant WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR violations. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much of it is original research and unsourced information. Move it to a wrestling wiki. Alot of the so called "triple crown champions" for some promotions: have never even been mentioned by the company itself. WWE has made some references to triple crown I believe, but other than that: it's internet/fan speculation on if or what makes a triple crown champion for a certain promotion. In response to TJ's suggestion for a vote to determine if the US title should be included: voting to determine something is a form of original research, and that wouldn't help the article much. Articles on Wikipedia are sourced reliable information, not information voted on by the editors. RobJ1981 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPER SPECIAL AWESOMELY STRONG KEEP It's on based on fact, and the accomplishment has been mentioned on WWE times before as a very important one. Just because a few people can't agree on a part of the article doesn't merit for its deletion. --Maestro25 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - care to prove what you are saying with sources? 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't have a specific date, but I do remember Kurt Angle and at least Shawn Michaels being mentioned as a triple crown champion on TV. And here you go. Pedro Morales is officially recognized as the first Triple Crown champion. --Maestro25 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Any sources shown are mentions in passing from WWE's website and the term is not widely used. I've never heard the term used on a broadcast and it has plenty of OR and is lacking multiple/independent RS. Just because a term is mentioned in passing does not mean that it deserves a page here. The page also causes a lot of edit wars since the term is not clearly defined, which wastes time. Wrestling titles are fixed/planned anyway, and there are too many pages on titles (like #s and length of reigns) that are notable and sourced, WP doesn't need a cruft page like this about something that is suspect in its own existence. Booshakla 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The problem here isn't that we can't prove if a Triple Crown exists, because it does. It is mentioned both on WWE.com and in TNA with A.J. Styles. The problem is determining what constitutes the Triple Crown. In TNA it's cut and dry (NWA World Title, X Title, NWA Tag Team Titles), in WWE is where we find the slippery slope. There is no disputing what makes up the "Classic Triple Crown" (WWF--now WWE--Title, I-C Title, WWF--now World--Tag Team Titles), it's the brand extension belts that are gumming up the works. The World Title and the WWE Tag Titles have been accepted, but the problems start with the U.S. and ECW Titles. While WWE never officially said they were a part of the TC, they also never said they weren't. Their status has been left murky. Some hints have been dropped as to how they see the titles:

--As far as the U.S. Title goes, WWE's Title history page has all of the Titles listed and drawn up on a chart where the Raw belts and Smackdown belts are lined up opposite their corresponding belt, giving the visual impression that I-C on Raw = U.S. on Smackdown. And with the ECW Title now being an option for the Royal Rumble winner (and most likely the Money in the Bank winner) to choose from, that also indicates that they see the WWE, World, and ECW titles as equals.

--However the whole fight is due to the fact that the words "WWE considers the U.S./ECW Titles as part of the Triple Crown/Grand Slam" have never appeared on WWE.com, and all of the hint dropping in the world--even by WWE itself--can be deducted 10 different ways by 10 different people.

--But for the article itself, by all means keep it, as the items in question do exist, it's just a matter of what needs added/subtracted. Ohgltxg 12:37 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Don't agree with this reasoning at all. Again, just because something exsists does not automatically entitle it to a page. It's not a widely used term, barely used, actually. And it's total Original Research. No reason for this page to stain WP. Booshakla 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the TCC is real and notable, but it is not verifiable. No, the two are not the same, and an article must have both to be Wiki material. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you that it's proper to have notablity and verifiability, if they aren't the latter, thats why they are tagged and placed in a category of articles that need to be verified; thus meaning we shouldn't delete everything we can't explicity find proof to. — Moe 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fake TV wrestling cruft entertainment. Lacks sufficient proof of notability. Edison 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WWE and TNA each make mention of the distinction. Even if they hadn't, its used widely enough to be notable. Jeff Silvers 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But not verifiable. Notability isn't what is in dispute here. 声援 -- The Hybrid 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Although I strongly dislike the amount of arguing that the article has recieved, the subject itself is notable. It's not clearly verifiable because the term is so unclearly defiable anymore. But there is sufficent grounds to keep this as an article. How is this fancruft? These are terms used by WWE! Fancruft is something created by fans to parody, in this case, wrestling, which it's clearly not fancruft since WWE made the terms Triple Crown Championship and Grand Slam Championship. Not hearing JR use the term doesn't make it not notable. — Moe 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also would like to take this time to say that anyone who starts to bring up the United States Championship debate here, this isn't the place, take it to the talk page. — Moe 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The issue here isn't if it ever existed, but if it's worth mentioning, and I believe it is. It's notifiable and verifiable as pointed out by Moe. I also dislike how much arguing goes on about it, but is that honestly a reason to delete this? While Moe and I disagree on aspects of the article, we both agree that it should remain. Anakinjmt 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm assuming that the removal of TCC means that all wrestlers listed must have all Triple Crown information removed as well, and that regardless of how the Grand Slam vote goes that the removal of the TCC page means the removal of the Grand Slam page even if there is a vote to keep that particular page. Darrenhusted 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let us worry about that if it occurs, we shouldn't think ahead of ourselves. — Moe 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ungodly Strong Keep This article will have sources pretty soon. I am writing to HHH tomorrow after work. Seeing his high status in the company we can easily use this as a source to the dispute. Anyway the reason that the U.S. and ECW titles aren't listed is that their status is unknown. We will have our answers soon! Big Boss 0 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid original research. --Bejnar 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it means (origional research) but I feel that a company executive can surly get the answers. Anyway WCW, TNA and OVW do adknowledge Triple Crown Champions and there is no point to delete this article. Big Boss 0 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCW never had a TV or talked about one (same with ECW). WWE and TNA have (I don't know about OVW, they are only on TV in the Kentucy area). Lrrr IV 03:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be original research with no references provided. Metros232 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Championship is heavily used term thats been used since the 70's or 80's. Calling it original research won't do here. The only thing we can't agree is on is which references to use since the definition is widely debated. — Moe 21:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references for us to decide to use. That is what I have been saying. 声援 -- The Hybrid 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to use to prove it exists, but the term isn't clearly definable, which is the dispute. We can't delete this article and say it doesn't exist because it will be recreated by wrestling fans who will readd close to the same information that we already have. Original research is something drawn on a conclusion/results based upon research based upon ourself, which the Triple Crown Championship could not accuratly be defined as that. — Moe 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to get at is since the term isn't clearly definable with sources, then it is impossible to write an article on it that passes WP:VERIFY, so it should be deleted. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the same reasons just stated--Cowboy From Hell 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave[reply]

• Delete it's not remotely refed enough to survive an AFD debate. NBeale 22:55, 26 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.