Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persona and reception of Roman 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 keep.

The nomination itself is curious, a new editor whose first edits are to initiate a deletion discussion? With all due respect to WP:AGF, I am probably not wrong to assume some previous editing experience. It also does not present a deletion rationale but merely argues for merging, which means the discussion was eligible for speedy keeping. Raising the merger proposal at AFD when just a few months ago there was consensus against it on the talk page also reeks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. As multiple people have remarked, merge proposals should go on the talk page and in fact were already there. If you disagree with the outcome, nominating the article for deletion is not the correct way to handle it. Consensus can change of course but AFD is not the way to achieve this unless arguments for outright deletion can be presented. If you just want to merge, discuss it at the talk page as previously done.

As for the discussion here, the delete !votes can be summed up as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and a link to an essay while the merge !vote rehashes the argument already made in the previous RFC without addressing the WP:ARTICLESIZE issues brought up. Even Moe Epsilon is not in favor of outright deletion though. In the end, neither the delete nor the merge !voters were able to present a policy-based reason to delete the article which incidentally aligns with the previous RFC consensus.

On a side note While you might have been correct that ' close can be considered a case of WP:BADNAC, reverting without discussion is not the correct way to handle it; see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for future reference.

Regards  So Why  08:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Persona and reception of Roman Reigns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

this doesn't warrant it's own separate page. John Cena was just as, if not more controversial, and he doesn't have a page about how his reaction was polarizing. Put it as a subsection of his main page Jc360x (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There was an RFC about this a few months ago. I think it could be condensed and merged into the main article. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The failed push of Roman Reigns has been the big story in WWE over the past few years, it's clearly notable enough for WP:GNG. You can draw a direct link between his rejection by fans and the record low ratings WWE is suffering through now. Washington Post even used this situation as an analogy for the 2016 US election. Separate articles for criticism or public image of individuals are not uncommon. I know this article comes up a lot when we discuss other topics we neglect (including our lacking coverage of Cena's awkward reception) but that's WP:OTHERSTUFF and shouldn't be considered during deletion discussions. I have always suggested that renaming the article would be an alternative to deletion but I haven't been able to come up with a better name and nobody else has suggest one either.LM2000 (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete this appears to be a POV fork of Roman Reigns. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is the topic of extensive reporting and clearly passes GNG. At 66kb, WP:SIZERULE suggests it should probably not be merged with the main article. Like the previous discussion: Talk:Roman_Reigns, no policy-based reason for deletion or merge has been offered. Proposal reason appears to be "other stuff doesn't exist". Cjhard (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep looking at the talk page, there appear to effectively be two merge discussions with significant participation in the past year, not just one. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no argument to keep this article beyond the purely procedural one. I agree with the arguments of the Merge voters. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Roman Reigns isn't the only wrestler who has been pushed to a negative reaction. As said earlier, so has Cena. So has Lex Luger. In a different but related vein, so had Muhammad Hassan. None of these have pages dedicated to them, they are included in the main articles for those individuals. This page should be deleted and it's content added to a subsection of the main article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzraSar (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)  — OzraSar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete this WP:CRUFT article and keep the reception section in Reigns' article at its current appropriate size. The never ending overwritten descriptions of his audience reactions and storylines has gone way out of control. As said above, no other wrestler has this kind of nonsense attached to their articles. JJARichardson (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete into the main Roman Reigns article. His push, de-push, reception, whatever is of course going to have references as the topic is discussed (at least among those who care). However, the reception of a wrestler's image to fans doesn't merit it's own article on Wikipedia. If anything, a subsection is all that is required. There could literally be hundreds of these articles about other wrestlers, but because of him being the current "face of the company" to WWE, he draws the most attention. John Cena and Triple H's persona and reception are probably the two most documented but even they have minimal content about that in their articles. In several years, either it will be irrelevant or not worthy of documenting. As of right now, it's just a weekly update of opinions on his fictional character, which is duplicated contents from the main article. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  07:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that it could be possible for a wrestlers reception to be warrant it's own article, but this isn't necessarily it.★Trekker (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is the reception/reputation that Chris Benoit earned after the double-murder and suicide. That is a well-researched, well-documented case of public opinion forming about a wrestler. Not only were his actions covered in his article, but the perception of Benoit as a wrestler post-death (and history scrubbing by WWE) and other topics were well worth their own article. The perception of John Cena's decade-long tenure atop the industry could be well more documented than it is in his article. One seriously lacking on Wikipedia is Triple H's rise from wrestler to CEO within WWE. It could be well more covered considering he married into the McMahon family and literally sits at the helm of the largest professional wrestling promotion now. Considering all of that and reading this article, I don't see anything special about Roman Reigns. All it amounts to, to me, is a bunch of fans and marks are upset he is winning matches or titles. It's just un-encyclopedic to me. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  17:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly, guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan who had careers spanning decades and are very controversial could earn something like that. There's a lot more to being said about those guys than week to week updates on internet fan stuff. (I also super agree that HHH's article should be expanded).★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep because this is a major event in Wrestling history that has received a lot of publicity. It is a very notable part of Roman Reign's career and it's worthy of being listed. It deals with his criticisms and the WWE's censorship of them. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A criticism of his career is notable, but it doesn't require the level of coverage that has been given in this article. WP:WEIGHT here is an issue. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  16:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep of course the new editors are salty enough to nominate this for deletion. We've already reached consensus at Talk:Roman_Reigns, because this is way too big to be fit in the Roman Reigns article.  Nickag 989 talk 12:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It arguably be fit into a paragraph worth of text, like it already has been on the main article. I could write a whole bunch of text to make it "too long" for any article, but does the topic actually worth covering independently? In this case it simply isn't. His career isn't any more notable than any other wrestlers. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  16:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've reverted two closures by, one for keep and another for merge. I find unsatisfactory that Jdcomix did not give any rational for either disclosure despite the healthy debate on both sides and I'm sure merge supporters will agree with that. An admin should be responsible for closing in this case. They also need to take into account that within the past four months this article has survived an RfC and merge proposal regarding merging this content.LM2000 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (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.