Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers


 * 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. ST47 Talk 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft/fancruft, purposeless. WP:NOT. BlackDart D 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, listcruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Terence Ong 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another great resource for wrestling fans like myself, but I think I'd have to agree that it's a bit overboard to have a list like this, when it's probably available elsewhere. Unsourced, so delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but update references to be in-line "Listcruft/fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. Note that finishers are an important part of professional wrestling as a sport; they are the signature move most identified with the individual wrestlers and often times serve to help define them. Listing them also allows readers to compare wrestlers who use similar finishers or, on occasion, share the same finisher.  The article does appear to be referenced with four different external links to finishing moves as well.  The only thing I see, therefore, is that it would be useful for verification purposes to provide inline footnote citations for each move pointing to a source that can verify the wrestler uses that move.  Dugwiki 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Soft Delete This is a long list and has obviously been worked hard on. But my problem is it is repeating two things. The first being that every wrestler article already contains the information. The second is the actual move itself already has a page and is described on that page. This is less like a catalog and more like a list. The good note I can only think of is for those who are actually starting up wrestling can view this list and decide what kind of signature finisher not to do or what to do! Govvy 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to reply, the purpose the list serves is to reindex the information found in the wrestler articles. Let's say a reader wants to compare for historical purposes wrestlers that have used a particular move or type of move as a finishing move.  It would be extremely difficult to figure out who did which move by simply perusing individual wrestler articles.  By having this information in a list format, though, it provides a single source the reader can visit.
 * In fact, all list articles have redundant information with other articles. A list of movies or books or games or people will always be constructed using information found in the associated main articles.  There are probably no lists on Wikipedia that use information not already found in the corresponding articles for individual entries.  The point of lists, then, isn't to provide "new" information, but is rather to reorganize and summarize existing information in a form that is useful but not easily accessible by reading the individual articles themselves. Dugwiki 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. but: we already have separate listings/categories for Professional wrestling holds, Professional wrestling attacks and Professional wrestling throws. Is there an argument for merging all three of those with this and identifying which fall into which category instead?  ...or something... --Dave. 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a case of having two different ways of indexing the same information. One is to list all wrestling moves, and then next to each move list wrestlers that use it as a finisher. The other is to list all wrestlers, and list all the finishing moves that wrestler used.  Note that it's possible for a reader to want to use either method to find information.  For instance, they might be thinking of a few wrestlers they like and want to look at their moves in one article.  It's also possible for a reader to be interested in a particular move and want to find people that might have used that move at some point.  Dugwiki 23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand my point here. I'm not debating the value of having a list of moves that identifies which wrestler uses them and wrestler pages that list their moves.  What I'm doubting is the necessity of having a separate section devoted to finishing maneuvers when we already have lists of maneuvers under three other articles, and which could be merged with this one into one comprehensive article identifying the move, whether it's a hold/attack or throw, whether it's used as a finisher, and who uses it as a signature maneuver.  Surely we should have one page devoted to maneuvers, not four? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batsnumbereleven (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).  Oops, sorry, should have signed it! --Dave. 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, that's actually an interesting question. I think what we both seem to agree we should focus on is the question "What is the best way to organize information about wrestling moves for Wiki readers?"  Splitting information between three or four articles has the disadvantage of making it harder for the editors to maintain, and also makes it possibly harder for readers to navigate.  Consolodating the information into one or two pages makes it easier to find the pages, and avoids duplication of maintainence, but in the case of extremely large articles can make the articles unwieldy to read and use.
 * Personally I think a good set up is to have one article that lists all wrestling moves sorted by type and then alphabetically by name. The move article probably would have to be split, though, into two subarticles since there are hundreds of moves, which might make that article too large.  Then have a seperate list article that only lists the names of the moves sorted by wrestlers who use them as signature moves, possibly with a two or three word descriptive notatation, and links those moves to the main move article(s).  I'm pretty sure this is similar to the set up we have now, but thinking from scratch that's probably how I'd set it up if I were doing it myself. It would allow readers to search for moves by name or by wrestler, but detailed information about the moves would be restricted to a single article and thus would be easier to maintain. Dugwiki 17:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Now can you tell me what type of people would use this information? why? and who on earth would really want to be so geeky as to compare wrestler signature moves!! Govvy 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the various I-don't-know-how-many millions of pro wrestling fans there are worldwide? If even 5% or 10% of wrestling fans were interested in reading about signature moves, that would represent possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm not a Pokemon fan, and I'm not personally interested in knowing every little detail about it, but that doesn't make it any less notable or important to the people who do care about Pokemon.  You don't see me going around calling people "geeky" because they are interested in reading Torchic, a previously featured article.  Just because something seems silly or pop culture doesn't mean it isn't valuable for a large number of potential readers. Dugwiki 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Very usefull. DXRAW 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic value. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. One Night In Hackney 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Indiscriminate collection" section of WP:NOT does not delve into list articles such as this one. It has a very narrow set of consensus categories of problem articles, none of which seem to apply to this one.  This would be an inappropriate use of that "indiscriminate collection" section.  Dugwiki 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep A very useful entry Kris Classic 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Fancrust/Listcruft is not a sufficent reason for deletion. "It is not a policy or guideline" as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FANCRUFT "Purposeless" is in the eye of the beholder and doesn't seem to pass the Pokemon test. His remaining reason, WP:NOT, doesn't seem to contain a valid argument against this type of article.Vladamire Steelwolf 12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is exactly what I was looking for. Clashwho 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to comment, the article does appear to list some sources at the end. However, it doesn't do in-line citations, so it's very difficult to tell which information is referenced and which isn't. Therefore I think the references need to be cleaned up to make them more readable and useful, but I don't believe this would be a case where the article is impossible to verify or no references exist. Dugwiki 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely an indiscriminant collection of information. The clause has traditionally been given a fairly broad interpretation on AfD.  Also pure listcruft, but commentators above are right that that is a weak deletion reason at best and fairly subjective.  Eluchil404 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The clause has traditionally been given a broad interpretation" is an incorrect assumption, as evidenced by the current discussion at the WP:NOT talk page. Most of the editors who have replied in that discussion on this section of policy agree that there is a common misconception on how broadly that part applies.  It is specifically written as to only indicate areas of broad consensus, and does not imply that other types of articles fall under the qualifier of "indiscriminate collection of information".  Of course, policy can change, and an article can fail to meet other standards like notability guidelines or verifiability.  But as written it is incorrect to say that an article violates the "indiscriminate collection of information" section of WP:NOT unless it falls under one of the types of information described there. Dugwiki 17:06, 24 January 2007 (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.