Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fancruft and self referential article not suitable for wikipedia.Gumlau (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Meltzers ratings are well known in the wrestling world among fans, professionals and other journalists/historians. I'd say there is enough coverage on this topic for a stanalone list. I also don't see how you can consider it "self referential", all lists cited came well before this page was made earlier in the year.★Trekker (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meltzer rating, as Treeker said, are well known in the wrestling world. Some databases, like cagemacth or profight, includes his ratings. Wrestlers like, Will Ospreay make proud of their 5 star matches. Some reliable sources, like Superluchas, even mention Meltzer 5 stars matches. I think the subject is notable enough for an independent article.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Dave Meltzer is relevant for the wikipedia, and has his own page, but the information in this page is better served by specific fan sites (and already is, the main reference on the page is a link to a fan blog). I'm sure that many film producers are proud of getting high ratings for their movies, but that doesn't mean we need a page to itemise the top review of film reviewers. There's no "list of Roger Ebert two thumbs up" movies or similar lists for the hundreds of reviewers we have listed here, because it's the sort of material that's more relevant to fansites. Gumlau (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment You do realize you don't get to throw a "vote" in an AFD you created right? That you want it deleted is already assumed.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Commment I'm aware of this, I was responding to the people who posted in support of keep. Also, this isn't a vote, it's not about how many people go one way or another, it's about the argument, and so far there's no strong argument to support keeping this page.Gumlau (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware it's not a "vote" that's why I put "vote" in quotations marks. Either way, please reply directly to people or give your reasoning in the lead of the AFD, its more clear and less confusing that way. Also, there is a strong argument to keep it. It's a widely covered topic, you can say it's not, but the sources say otherwise.★Trekker (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Meltzer himself disputes the importance and relevance of his rating system and his standards have changed with the passage of time. As Gumlau pointed out, no such articles exist for any other noteworthy critics in different media (movies, music, literature, etc.) Meltzer is one critic and these ratings are only his personal opinion, hardly an objective honor worth noting with a standalone list. Saget53 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fan crufty list with no encyclopedic value except for some wrestling fan boys (as a wrestling fanboy myself I can confirm this) MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * keep - not that I particularly care about his reviews, but this is no different from other such lists such as something like List of films considered the best. This is a well-defined list regarding a Reliable source. If there were more wrestling journalists that had a reputation, it could be expanded. Regardless of what he has said (it would actually make sense to have a "detractors" section, the subject is notable by WP:LISTN Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The big difference between the linked "best films" page is that the page (which itself is a little crufty), is a combination of many different reviewers and awards, whereas this page is the opinion of one reviewer. If we were to host a page of the best matches according to different wrestling reviewers, then that might be suitable here, but publishing an arbitrary list of matches one person liked is more suited to a wrestling wiki than here.Gumlau (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point though? There aren't really any other journalists that could contribute. Like it or not, he is the closest thing wrestling has. There's no policy for this not to be a thing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Meltzer ratings are his personal opinions. Due to the nature of wrestling, its impossible to provide an objective ratings on matches. Subjective opinions are not Wikipedia worthy. Meltzer himself has said that his standards for ratings have changed over time. A five star match 20 years ago is not the same as a five star match today and there is no way to quantify the change in standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajavel 2k12 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if Dave said don t take his ratings to serious and his criteria changed, it doens't change th fact that are mentioned in reliable sources. Solowrestling, wrestletalk, and Superluchas make news when he gave 5 stars.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Commment For every reliable source that supports his ratings, there are reliable sources that don't. Even last week, he said he has different scales for NJPW and WWE; He also said watching NXT followed by G1 biased his opinions. So, it is not really a factual or fairer rating system and not Wikipedia worthy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajavel 2k12 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: dude doenst really even follow his own list. the scale is now 7 stars, and 5 means nothing due to that.Muur (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge with Dave Meltzer page. Meltzer is reputable and his ratings are important, but I feel it would be appropriate to have a section in the Meltzer page that states his highest rated matches. There isn’t a comprehensive list of four star reviews given by Ebert, but there is a brief section of his favorite movies of the year since 1969. That sort of brief mention of his highest rated matches on his wiki page seems more appropriate for Meltzer. Ducktech89 (talk) 17 August 2019, 2:11 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage in reliable secondary sources, including Sports Illustrated, Greg Oliver/Steven Johnson book , book by Bryan Alvarez , book by John Molinaro , CBS Sports . As for the arguments provided above, there is no rule that prevents subjective opinions from appearing on Wikipedia--what is important is the coverage in reliable sources, which is demonstrated above. People's disagreements with his system also have no relevance in deletion discussions--the article meets WP:N. Changing or inconsistent rating scales don't matter--even if people write about their objections to the system, the fact that they discuss it is just more evidence of its notability. WP:CRUFT is an essay that the Wikiproject tosses out as an argument against all sorts of things, and it has no actual standing in policy or guidelines. Including the information isn't giving it Wikipedia's stamp of approval, as many people seem to fear--it's just following notability guidelines, which state that if multiple reliable secondary sources discuss it in some detail, it's valid for inclusion. That's clearly the case here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem with your links, yes some of them discuss Dave Meltzer's influence, and no one is arguing that, but there's nothing there to suggest that the arbitrary rank of "matches rated five stars or more" is a notable subject in and of itself. I agree with the other poster that this is the sort of subject that probably needs merging with the main Dave Meltzer article.Gumlau (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. There is an article from Sports Illustrated titled "The History of Star Ratings". I'm thinking the bigger problem is that you might not quite understand WP:N. If a topic gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, it is notable. If anything, your arguments against his rating system demonstrate even more of a need for this page--based on your arguments, it should be expanded to include a criticism section. This works against any merge proposals, as a stand-alone article is better suited to handle this topic (perhaps a section on "negative 5 star matches" should also be added). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This AFD was never added to the logs, so I'm relisting and adding it to today's log.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 14:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is none other than pure WP:FANCRUFT. Somebody's personal opinions are not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? Wouldn't that mean every reception section ever made wasn't encyclopedic? They are simply a collection of personal opinions. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Once they have major publications reporting on the opinions, as mentioned in the above discussion, they're certainly encyclopedic. Sports Illustrated doesn't publish articles about the history of just anyone's opinions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - But merge with the Dave Meltzer article. As pointed out by GaryColemanFan, Meltzer's ratings are covered in reliable secondary sources. Even though they are the opinions of one critic, they are notable due to their coverage. However, I do believe that they should be merged with the Dave Meltzer article. Meltzer's ratings don't need to be on their own page; as Ducktech89 said, we don't have a separate page for Roger Ebert's ratings. Why should we have a separate one for Meltzer? Aguy777 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Arbitrary cutoff point (and what's the top rating anyway?) and fancruft. Possibly the rarer entries rated higher than 5 could be merged to Meltzer's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the argument. 5 stars is considered as good as it gets. That's historically been the top rating. In recent years, he's said that some matches exceed even that and given them ratings that are off the scale. It's still out of 5 stars, though, so it's not an arbitrary cutoff point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Dave Meltzer's 5-star matches lists are of greater importance to the professional wrestling community than casual people believe. Matches with a 5-star rating are generally listed in different wrestling web databases such as cagematch.com or profightdb.com, and these ratings are included in the profiles of the different pro wrestlers here in wikipedia being comparable to their titles or tournaments won. While some may consider these lists a personal opinion of Meltzer, therefore subjective and even inaccurate, the truth is that over the years he has always kept the attention on the wrestling fans and these qualifications are always mentioned and discussed on several websites. What I agree with is the fact that all Meltzer 5-star fights are duly referenced from reliable pages as data bases and not from fan websites as the page is currently. --El malatraza (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The 5+ star ratings are a notable achievement in the pro wrestling world, and the notability is established by the rating's news coverage for matches rated as such. Therefore, GNG is passed and the list is established. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the page should stay because it's difficult to find a full list of 5 star matches, every list I've seen manages to miss a few matches. ItsMichaelRay (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's a lot of commentary here that isn't based on WP policy. It doesn't matter that these are just his opinions (so is every award for something subjective - like the Oscars). It doesn't matter that he's arbitrary (so, again, are the Oscars). It doesn't matter whether this list is/is not useful or interesting. What matters is WP:NLIST, WP:NOT, and WP:V. That's all that matters really in this particular AFD. Based on these sources (1 2 3) I can see that they probably are since Meltzer's ratings for matches are discussed as a group in what appear to be reliable (at least passes for WP:NEWSORG), independent sources. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm usually tempted to say 'this is one guy's opinion WP:WHOCARES'...but reading through the sourcing and that this man is acclaimed in his field as a news-breaker and writer, I'm inclined in this case to keep. We have articles for college sports like the Helms Athletic Foundation, Houlgate System, and Dickinson System where one person or group declared champions and it's been respected by scholars as for the most part a good decision, and this is equivalent to that. There's a fair case here made to keep this article, and I'm going to agree on this one; this isn't grading every single match since 1984, just a number of prime matches, as it should be.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading through the Keep comments I'm not convinced that any evidence has been presented to justify keeping this page. While it's true that a lot of the sources provided demonstrate the notability of Dave Meltzer and his work as a critic (and that is not in question here at all), none of them demonstrate the notability of these particular match ratings. The five star rating is seemingly arbitrary as his ratings go above and beyond that, I think we're moving to a consensus that some of the information here should be  merged into the main Dave Meltzer page. Gumlau (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge I'm fine with a merge.Muur (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dave Meltzer. I don't see the in-depth coverage in independent RS needed to meet WP:GNG. But to some extent that is secondary. The Dave Meltzer page is relatively brief and a merge in of this page would make a nice, full size article. Indeed, even if this page was kept I would support a merge on encyclopaedia building grounds. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (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.