Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities involved with TNA Wrestling


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

List of celebrities involved with TNA Wrestling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Meets the very definition of WP:LISTCRUFT. Celebrities having a one-off appearance with a wrestling promotion do not need an article. Article hasn't even had an entry since 2013? Fails WP:GNG. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete very Crufty.  MPJ  -DK 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think TNA's relationship with celebrities is particularly notable.LM2000 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Nikki  ♥  311   17:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete — WP:LISTCRUFT  Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖  22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could any of the "cruft" voters please explain the difference between this and the Featured List List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryColemanFan (talk • contribs)
 * Pretty simple: WrestleMania is the largest pay per view event for the largest professional wrestling organization in the world with about a hundred known celebrities being actively involved in that one singular PPV. This article mashes every appearance on pay-per-view and TV and still can't come up with a fifth of the numbers the WrestleMania article has. TNA is a very distant second, like every other wrestling promotion in the world. The difference? WrestleMania, more specifically WWE, has been culturally influential and recognizable. Defunct promotions like WCW have more notability and "celebrity" involvement than TNA and don't have articles like these. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  23:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of WrestleMania's prestige comes from celebrity involvement. This goes back to Mr. T in the main event of the first one with Muhammad Ali as special guest referee, Liberace as timekeeper and even an appearance by the Rockettes! It's telling that this originally redirected to Impact Wrestling, a section that no longer exists while WrestleMania 32 and WrestleMania 31 have sections on celebrity involvementLM2000 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough of the citations are from notable, reliable sources. This establishes notability for the celebrity involvement. None of the other argument presented reference anything but an essay (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) and an "I don't think it's notable" statement. As for the reasons presented in response to my question, clearly TNA is hoping that celebrity involvement can add to its prestige, and being second to the biggest promotion in the world is clearly no small thing. Some of the references could stand to be replaced, but the article is notable as it currently stands. In fact, WCW should definitely have a similar article as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Being second best means nothing if not notable or succesful in itself. Either way, is there actually enough here to warrant a separate article? This isn't even for celebrities that have appeared for one of their shows but just in general. It seems a bit indiscriminate to me.★Trekker (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be successful. Notability can come from something not working repeatedly, to the point of being ridiculous (as shown by http://www.thesportster.com/wrestling/ranking-every-awful-celebrity-appearance-in-tna/ - from a site with an established crew of writers and editors; clearly they deem TNA's celebrity involvement to be reliable). I added a couple more -- after all, this is a promotion that brought in Billy Corgan as president and Tito Ortiz as a member of Aces & Eights. Today, I also added another Pro Wrestling Torch reference (from the WP:PW list of reliable sources), as well as one from WrestleView (also on that list), one from ESPN, and one from Spin Magazine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sportster may have an established crew but they're far from a good source. I've seen them pretty much copy entire sections of of wikipedia with the most minute changes, might as well be a wikipedia copy site at times. Not that that's very relevant to this disscusion, since there are apparently other sources. And I said "notable or succesful" by the way. I know that notability has nothing to do with how "good" something is.★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what references are used. The article has no substance and doesn't warrant its own article. We can establish the celebrities involvement with WrestleMania actually evolved it into the event it still is. Can TNA's article establish that the celebrity involvement was in any way significant for them? You can provide references that the events you are citing actually happened, yes, but not that the celebrity appearances were actually meaningful. Some stretch the very definition of this list. Tito Ortiz was a near full-time performer, not just a celebrity appearance. Billy Corgan is a celebrity, yes, but he was a shareholder and president. That's not a celebrity one-off appearance. That leaves sixteen celebrity appearances and I don't know how you can honestly justify a stand alone article for it. It's basically trivia. Regards, —  Moe   Epsilon  04:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.