Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top WWE World Heavyweight Champions by combined length


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

List of top WWE World Heavyweight Champions by combined length

 * Delete. It's simply listcruft, not needed. RobJ1981 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. The article was under construction when it was tagged to be deleted. The list is perfectly valid and of interest to wrestling fans.Pretzolio@yahoo.com 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Useless info. Clay4president 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This could be interesting to wrestling fans as something akin to baseball stats, but it needs sources and removal of self-reference quickly. Author appears willing, so I won't vote delete just yet. If the fixing is not done soon, though, I wouldn't oppose a renomination. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it desperately needs some sourcing. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs a lot of work. Article name is confusing, and no sourcing.  If not fixed soon will support renomination and deletion. Ramsquire 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into other WWE Champion lists: per Mgm. Give at least sometime for the author to give some claims of notability and add citations. This article was tagged for deletion on the same day it was created. --Mitaphane talk 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest changing it to include all world champions and not just WWE, use the page List of professional wrestling World Title reigns by length. TJ Spyke 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Listcruft.  Vegaswikian 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - in general I think that highest, biggest, longest lists are encyclopaedic. I agree that the scope of this list needs to be widened and deepened but the nomination was a bit quick off the mark. I suggest that the nominator sets up a reminder in Outlook and brings it back in a month or so if the suggestions on here haven't been adopted. BlueValour 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Vegaswikian and Clay4president. -- bullet proof  3:16 20:56, 26 August 2006 (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.