Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling slang


 * 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 per WP:SNOW and WP 3:16. &mdash; Caknuck 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling slang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:NOT. It's a list of terms, though long, it's more suited for Wikitionary if anything (though some may think it's not period). Also, I don't know of a place to request transwiki'ing, either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Kwsn  (Ni!)  00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I will admit it looks like a superfluous list of terms, but they're are lots of pro-wrestling lists out there and divided accurately. These terma, valid or not only fit here. Some of the terms are redundant, but there is a lot that are good. I have no clue what to say yet? I will respond later. Showmanship is the key 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (tries in vain to decipher Supershow's comments) Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * *is lost too* Kwsn   (Ni!)  00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.   Nikki311 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the list is (mostly) sourced. Moreover, the following Good Articles use the list to keep the writing "out-of-universe": Candice Michelle, Kurt Angle, Nora Greenwald, John Cena, Rena Mero, and Shelton Benjamin. Deleting the list would be a major set-back for the project, as all the current Good Articles would have to be reworked, every term would have to be defined in every article, and a new method for taking the articles "out-of-universe" would have to be devised. Moreover, there are hundreds of incoming links, with many of the articles having dozens of links to it. Nikki311 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nikki311. The deletion of this list would lead to a huge mess that is best avoided. Another thing to keep in mind is that if these terms aren't in one location then I can see some users creating stubs to explain them. Instead of a nice concise list, we could possibly see a mass of stubs, that will always be stubs. Stephen Day 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, that is very true. I've already merged and redirected several stubs into the list, and I just put Turn (professional wrestling) up for AfD with the rationale that it is not notable enough for an article of its own, but could be covered in a few sourced sentences on the list. Nikki311 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Per WP:DICDEF, WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. i said 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think the list could be trimmed, but I think it serves a valuable function. And it's certainly not the only article that lists terms (see List of glossaries). GaryColemanFan 02:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nikki311. Deleting this list would be a major setback for WP:PW. - Eggy49er 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nikki311 and Stephen Day. A lot of work has gone into this list in an attempt to get rid of a mass wrestling term stubs.  Again, being able to link to the terms on this page is very much needed to keep pro wrestling articles "out of universe." --Naha|(talk) 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nikki311 and GaryColemanFan. --ProtoWolf 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly do not like the usage of glossaries to get pass WP:NOT#DICT.  I can understand for medical terms etc, but not when everything is cited to a non-reliable source Corpx 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't believe I'm voting to keep a wrestling topic, but this list is far, far better than individual articles on each slang term, which has been the case before. Needs more varied sources, though. Realkyhick 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep from the "Not a dictionary" section In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate - this is one essential article about a lot of "slang" that's essential to wrestling, beats having them all be individual pages that quickly get filled up with crufty "examples". Keep this instead of opening the floodgates on individual pages. MPJ-DK 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, needed to help us distinguish between in-universe and real life events in many other articles, and to prevent wrestling substub proliferation hell. I would settle for a transwiki to wiktionary if feasible, however. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, glossaries are the exception that makes the rule. However, there are some terms on the page that don't have a place in the formal-voice writing used in encyclopedias (ie, "clusterfuck"). Not coincidentally, many (if not all) of these terms are unsourced. Those should be removed. hateless 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, 'carny' terms are an integral part of the wrestling community. --Endlessdan 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sometimes, it is necessary to have glossary-type articles to help aid the reader in defining terms essential to a topic. It doesn't matter if the central topic is professional wrestling page (which this one happens to be), or baseball, medical terms, whatever. Glossaries are meant to clarify terms that the reader might not otherwise be able to derive from the context. In professional wrestling, there are many "slang" terms that the average reader might not be able to figure out. Briguy52748 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Keep' - this needs to be closed now per WP:SNOW. Davnel03 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a glossary. There are lots and lots of glossarys in Wikipedia, and this is one of them. If you're going to put this page up for deletion, at least try to do so for all the other glossaries. MITB LS (t·c) 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please avoid WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Kwsn   (Ni!)  16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. All I'm really trying to say that: a lot of the PW articles use these terms. Sure, terms such as "kayfabe" and "turn" and "face" and "heel" have their own articles. But... there's lots of other terms (such as "angle", "bury", "card" and "dark match") where it's terminology would be appropriate on this page. Said above: the GAs (and even the FAs) use the list to keep the writing "out-of-universe". The page is rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. I think the page should be kept for these reasons, as well as the reasons above. MITB LS (t·c) 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah, yeah, I know a lot do, I've gotten lost in the wrestling pages before, but the thing is, wouldn't something like this be more suited for wikitionary? Kwsn   (Ni!)  16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were to move the words to WT, where would you put them? Likely, separtate pages for each single term (if you were to do that, it would be a huge hassle for 100+ terms). The point of this page is to compile the slang terms to one central place where someone new could easily go to and learn it without having to move between pages. It's technically the point of any glossary (glossary = a list of specialized or technical words with their meanings). I think it would be best if the page would be kept. MITB LS (t·c) 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nikki311. What I would say has already been said various times above, the list is a good guide for all terms as many of them show up amongst many wrestling angle articles and wrestlers' pages themselves, it's good to keep them all in one place. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I just went through the list and deleted OR terms, terms without sources, and terms that will probably never be used in an individual article. It looks a lot better now. Nikki311 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I just reviewed all the deltions and it looks good to me. I'd like to find sources for "Ropebreak" and "Rub" and add them back at some point, however all the removals were appropriate. --Naha|(talk) 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Nikki13. The article does look better now than it did and it is a vital part of the wrestling Wikiproject. Deleting this would do the same as deleting lists of moves - cause nearly every wrestling article to have to be re-written. Gavyn Sykes 18:20, 5 September 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.