Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music in professional 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 keep. There appears to be a lot of support for improving and verifying the article to the best of our ability -- that sounds like an excellent idea. Some people think splitting the article between different articles would be the way to go; could give that a shot, and either redirect, disambiguate, or re-nom for deletion, if you like. One way or another, though, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete at this time. Luna Santin 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Music in professional wrestling

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing more than listcruft/fancruft...sorry to be blunt but I fail to see how the big list serves much purpose beyond that. I propose that the big entrance theme list be deleted. Have no problem with the intro beind kept, but the list is all unsourced. However, these theme songs are an indiscriminate list of information which is specifically said to not be accepted on Wikipedia (see WP:NOT).Rubyredslippers 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Keep The first paragraph explains that music in professional wrestling is notable and important. Normy  132  07:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless listcruft. J I P  | Talk 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, the paragraphs describing the music in professional wrestling should be merged to professional wrestling, and the huge list of wrestler entrance themes should be deleted. J I P  | Talk 08:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, if your going to delete this one your going to have to do Music in the movies, Music in football, Music in theatre, Music in church, etc... However this article does lack references and I fail to see how it will succeed in finding documentation. I would like to know so I could go get the books and help out with the article. May have some promis! --CyclePat 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mabe merge to Music at sporting events. --CyclePat 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a valid reason - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FANCRUFT
 * Keep, but provide more references "Listcruft/fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. Entrance music is particularly important in professional wrestling, and many of the wrestlers and shows on this list are extremely notable.  In addition, this list indexes a great deal of information that can not be easily cataloged within other existing articles or the category system.  Therefore the list is both useful and notable.  However, that all being said, it does currently suffer from a large lack of references.  The songs are most likely correct, but to meet citation standards someone needs to provide references verifying the information in the article. I have therefore flagged the article requesting references. Dugwiki 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Even per the above referenced essay (not guideline or policy), "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion."  In other words the perception of something being "fancruft" might contribute to people wanting to delete it, but it is not used as the reason for deletion.  There is no policy or even any guidelines against "fancruft". Dugwiki 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And to put it another way, you should never see an admin delete an article with the official reason being "fancruft". It might be deleted for lack of references or a notability issue, but you should not see articles deleted if the only complaint on the afd is "fancruft". Dugwiki 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:NOT is quite clear. One Night In Hackney 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, WP:NOT does not mention the word "fancruft" once. So I'll say it again, you should never see an article deleted with the only reason being "fancruft". Dugwiki 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It clearly says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is a classification fancruft can fall under and does on this occasion. You are arguing over semantics while choosing to ignore the fundamental problems the article has, your time might be better served improving the article to address these problems? One Night In Hackney 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not ignoring anything, as I already described above that in my opinion the information in the article is notable and useful to readers, but that it does have a problem in that it currently lacks references. My complaint is that "fancruft" is, frankly, an unfortunately all too common and inappropriate phrase for afd and cfd discussions.  I would much rather nominators not use that term at all since whether or not something is "fancruft" has no bearing on whether or not I'll support deletion. It's a waste of time to use the phrase in a nomination for deletion, and also is rather insulting to otherwise good faith article authors. Dugwiki 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. You'll note that, as before, the word "fancruft" does not appear in What Wikipedia is not, again undercutting the assertion that it is a useful phrase that might apply to official policy. Dugwiki 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. You'll also note if you read the section you highlighted titled Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that the section is actually quite limited in scope. "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...", followed by a list of consensus areas which are inappropriate (ie Lists of FAQs, Travel Guides, Memorials, etc).  Lists such as this one are not included in those categories, so that section of that policy does not necessarilly even talk about this type of article. Dugwiki 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Difficult, this one. The psychological aspect of music in relation to crowd "heat" at wrestling events is pretty large, as the characters are quite closely tied to their themes in the mind of the audience, so there's a reasonable amount of potential for an article on that side of things. However, sourcing is definitely missing, and the list seems to be overdoing it. Weak delete; possibly merge the information in the first couple of paragraphs to professional wrestling, but axe the list (despite my finding it useful once or twice) as being nearly impossible to source. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Serve the same purpose as soundtracks listings of discographies (different from those of an artist's). Same as List of songs performed on The X Factor (UK TV series) or List of songs in South Park, which are also musical lists related and belonging to highly different categories and apparently has no informational values apart from gathering them in one page. But that's not a reason for deletion for me.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. Also I like to add that if I was interested in any of the songs by wrestlers, I find this an excellent article to browser for the artist, find out the song name. This is a good article and it runs like a catalog. Maybe it also requires a category to run with it. Govvy 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete In its current state it contains large amounts of mostly unverifiable original research. If the article is kept I recommend the list of songs is deleted and started again from scratch with each song being properly referenced, otherwise the article will always have major problems. One Night In Hackney 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually a surprising amount of the information is verifiable, although the references aren't yet included. You can typically verify what theme songs a wrestler or PPV used in a few ways. First, some of that information appears on the wrestling promotion's official website.  Second, the major promotions release periodic official music CDs which feature the theme songs for their wrestlers and PPVs, including listing on the track list which song is for which wrestler.  Just using those two sources, you could probably provide accurate citations of either official internet postings or from official CDs that verify who uses what. The remaining uncited songs could be either removed or tagged with "citation needed". Dugwiki 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt on notability, per arguments above. Verification is poor to non-existant; ideally, each entry on the list needs a source. Assuming a consensus that this is notable, we would want to keep the list for those cases where an article about the wrestler does not yet exist, or does not include this information. May be appropriate to keep, mark for verification, list on relevant Projects, and revisit in a month. If verification then remains flimsy, I would be minded to delete, but let's give the workers a chance. Eludium-q36 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support that proposal. Give the people who maintain this list a couple of weeks to get the references in order.  If it hasn't improved, resubmit for afd. Dugwiki 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Very usefull. DXRAW 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Usefulness is a very subjective judgment and like all subjective judgments should be avoided in deletion debates as far as is possible." (WP:ILIKEIT) -- Aaru Bui  DII 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that this part of the "I Like It" essay (not guideline) does not make a claim that usefulness has no bearing. Clearly the more people that consider an article useful as Wiki readers, the more likely it is to be worth inclusion. In the absence of going against policies, if an article is also useful that will weigh in favor of keeping it intact. Dugwiki 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, to put it another way, being useful certainly doesn't hurt. Dugwiki 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. lots of good information, should be kept. Shelbysc 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced and original research. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge the information contained within the extensive lists to the appropriate articles (e.g. incorporate the theme songs into wrestlers' infoboxes) and cut it off of the article. It is indiscriminate on its own but would complement other articles nicely. As for the prose, delete if it can't be referenced, merge into Professional wrestling if it can be referenced but not expanded, and leave it alone if both can be done. -- Gray  Porpoise Your wish is my command! 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Shelbysc has not made edits outside of this subject.Rubyredslippers 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the usefulness of the information, though, the lack of references is a serious issue. My keep vote above is contingent on the article receiving references to verify the information, preferably an inline citation for each song directing editors to where that song can be verified as being a theme for that wrestler/show. Dugwiki 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Split and Re-Write This info belongs on the wrestler's pages, and doesn't need a page of it's own. The prose can stay, but the list doesn't belong here. If someone wants to know the name of Austin Aries's enterance, they'll go to his page to find it. While the info here is valid and varifiable, the collection is messy and invites the inclusion of non-noteable information. A good way to decide if the enterance music is notable, is if the wrestler is notable. If they don't have their own page, they don't deserve an entry here. If we are going to use that logic, why not just put the info in their page, and throw on a catagory on it to group wrestlers with distinguished music? -- NickSentowski 20:12, 23 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.