Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns


 * 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 (default keep all). Editors may merge and redirect as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

For reasons enumerated here and here. This whole ball of wax is ridiculously synthetic and too subjective to have encyclopedic merit. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are created with the same subjective standards as the first:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.   — Nikki  311  15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.   — Nikki  311  15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly subjective and without proper sources Gwernol 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all For too long we have tolerated existance of these articles which serve only to promote the narrow viewpoint of one magazine. The criteria this magazine apply are not recognised by any promotion or professional wrestler in the business and are therefore wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: to preempt anyone bringing up the issue of WWE publishing Ric Flair winning "PWI Wrestler Of The Year" 20 years ago on a DVD - if WWE recognises PWI as an authority then how come WWE doesn't recognise the TNA World Title? ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In wrestling, major companies generally don't recognize other companies in a positive way. WWE rarely even mentions other wrestling organizations (even its own farm territories).  TJ   Spyke   00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles don't claim these are the official world titles, just that these are the titles with world title status from PWI. I don't see how this is any different that having an article on what Rolling Stone thinks are the best songs of all time. The sources are PWI magazine itself. I haven't subscribed to PWI in a few years (although I still glance through it when I am at a store that sells it), but I used to subscribe.  TJ   Spyke   00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that Wikipedia maintains an article called Greatest Songs Of All Time with a disclaimer at the top saying "Rolling Stone say they're the best and I agree so now it's official!"ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a difference of perspective, I suppose. What is the intent of creating an article like Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time? To document that list. End of story. What is the purpose of creating List of Number of World Title Reigns, a forerunner to the article in this AFD? To document how many times someone has held a "world title" in wrestling. Well, that's all well and good, but through specifying what a "world title" is and is not, we find that we have to treat the word of a single magazine, susceptible (as anything would be) to biases, with a sort of odd dogmatic reverence. That's not the Wikipedia I know. When we come to the point where we're being ridiculously restrictive over who and what goes in the articles (Adam Pearce? Out! Sandman? One out of five!) it's further reinforcing that we're treating one source like absolute fact. What is the point of documenting how many times someone won a belt at times when PWI called it a world title? That's an honest question. Two more things come to mind, and those are Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Listcruft. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam Pearce isn't listed because the NWA Title lost world title status when it ended its relationship with TNA (since now the title is back to being defended in indy feds who rarely have more than a couple hundred people at their events and now aired on TV), The Sandman only has 1 listed because PWI didn't give the ECW Title world title status until August 1999 and did not retroactively give that status to previous champions. PWi is usally considered (not always, but usually) as the definitive wrestling magazine partially since it has been around for almost 30 years (this marks the 30th year IIRC). It's a well-respected and popular magazine, in my opinion it's worth nothing who has won what they recognize as world titles.  TJ   Spyke   01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you're going to have to start providing proof that PWI is, as you repeatedly refer to it, a "definitive source/authority", or even that it is "well-respected and popular". At the moment that is POV and/or WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all -- Possibly merge with Pro Wrestling Illustrated?-- bullet proof  3:16 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per Caribbean H.Q. below. -- bullet proof  3:16 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it and get rid of it once and for all. Nenog (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect - Mention the championships that PWI recognizes as pocessing "World title" status into here (possibly just by copy and pasting the table listing them and adding relevant prose) and redirect to PWI. -   Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could accept this (although i'm still hoping they will be kept entirely). 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Keeping this page doesn't promote PWI's view or declare it official. It is a useful list, and I don't see any reason to delete or merge it. I don't agree with everything on Wikipedia, but deletion is not the answer. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In similar cases, (Foo magazine's top 100 whatevers), has been perceived as copyvio. Also, no sources are present attesting to the notability of the list nor its content. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If a merge can be done that doesn't make Pro Wrestling Illustrated absurdly bulky (maybe just the table of how many times each wrestler has held a PWI belt?), I think that would be ideal. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2008 (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.