Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship


 * 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 redirect to WWE Greatest Royal Rumble. The "delay" !votes are based on the idea that while there currently is not enough evidence of notability, there may be some in the future. Many of the "keep" !votes are not very convincing. A redirect to the parent article seems the best solution. Any content that is worth merging there is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly WP:TOOSOON. The "championship belt" is likely exactly the same as any other toy belt that is given out. Hasn't recieved any press, and shouldn't be treated as any other championship belt until it is announced that it would be defended.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - At this point I have WP:DOUBT as to whether or not there will be notability, so I tend to lean toward keep in those situations. There is no harm in leaving it and nominating it once we see how things play out. Although not on the listed atop of the superstar pages with the other championships, this is a new belt so not sure how they will treat it. Judge by the belt's actual page, the WWE appears to consider this a current title. -  Galatz Talk  10:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Potential notoriety in the future is not a keep criteria, WP:CRYSTALBALL would take effect.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying it is too soon to determine is not CRYSTAL, it is an argument to keep rather than rush to delete. The question isn't whether or not it got coverage, because clearly it did, the question when determining whether or not to delete this is if it is WP:LASTING. That CANNOT be determined yet. If you think me saying its too soon is CRYSTAL, then you saying it isn't lasting is crystal. Like I said, I tend to lean toward keep and reevaluate in a couple months once the facts are known. That is why there is WP:RAPID. -  Galatz Talk  11:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 *  Delay  Redirect - Delay the deletion. WWE seems to not recognized Braun Strowman as the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Champion on RAW (The Raw after Greatest Royal Rumble). This can indicate that this is a one time thing, and the Championship is not moving forward. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC) My stance is now Redirect. Despite the "Keep", After seeing WWE Backlash (2018), this WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship is a one time thing (and this championship belt is just a award like a trophy (with no reign or how many days held). The page can be re-created if it does become relevant again in the future.Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delay - Agree with Galatz and Colton Meltzer. Delay for a bit to see what happens. This could turn out to be a yearly reward for this particular match, akin to the WrestleMania battle royal trophies, although this match has both a trophy and a belt, but that's beside the point. -- JDC808  ♫  20:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delay At this point it seems that WWE is uncertain to what they're going to do with with the championship. We should delay any decision until something occurs with WWE. -  ZSJUSA 
 * Delete. No such title exists. It's just a trophy and has never been defended. Str1977 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one knows exactly what's to become of it, but it was literally just introduced a week ago. It hasn't exactly had the opportunity to be defended yet if it is a title that will be defended. -- JDC808  ♫  03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - "No such title exists" - incorrect. According to WWE.com the title is exactly the same as the other championships. It says Braun Strowman is the current champion and has been champion for 5 days and 3 hours. This is exactly what they do for other championships. If it was just a one-time thing, why would he have been champion for 5 days? WWE doesn't list Matt Hardy as having been the Andre the Giant winner for x amount of days, because thats not a Championship, but this is. Not to mention, WWE showed Braun with the title on his shoulder during the past RAW when promoting Backlash. To say it's not a real championship and therefore doesn't deserve a page is a dumb argument. The title history is brief at the moment, but it will only grow like the other new titles. Goku4Star (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Definite Keep. This is a new championship belt so WWE has no absolute idea what to do with it at the moment and they have considered this belt a sanctioned championship unlike the WWE Internet Title that's with Zack Ryder which is still disputed and unsanctioned. Kyrios320 (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid keep criteria. We only include championships if they meet WP:GNG. This championship may be important in the future, or maybe it will never be defended, and be completely worthless. However, we shouldn't be keeping an article simply based on the fact it may be used later. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Currently, WP:ITEXISTS, and has minute amounts of press coverage, The Sportster and CBS Sports articles are fine, but every other mention doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The title literally just came out. You're making such a rash decision. Where are your sources saying it won't be defended? You dont have them. It's an official title and therefore deserves a page. You can't just tell someone their opinion to keep the article isnt valid. If in one years time it's never defended then sure, delete it, but it literally just came out and got massive coverage. You can't say it doesnt deserve a page. Goku4Star (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

IT IS A KEEP WILL YA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmm134 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the same reasons as the other keeps. MarioFan78 (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the statements above and the other people voting keep. Pokkeballs17 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2018 (GMT)
 * Keep - Per all of the "keep" votes above. Hansen Sebastian 09:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I doubted it at first, but it has some pretty significant coverage and is being treated as an actual championship, as far as I can tell.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. TheDeviantPro (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WWE Greatest Royal Rumble. The "Keep" voters are relying on WP:OR and speculation that this will happen again  (the claim that since a timer appears on the WWE website the title is meaningful, in particular, is pure WP:OR).  The page can be re-created if it does become relevant again in the future. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not Original Research that this is an officially recognized Championship and is treated as such.  Goku 4 Star  Talk 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep WWE's official website has now officially announced Braun Strowman as the Greatest Royal Rumble Champion and recognizes the Greatest Royal Rumble Championship. Please watch out this link: wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/greatest-royal-rumble-championship User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist
 * I understand WWE posted on their WWE.com Championship page, but WWE did not recognize Barun Storwman as WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Champion on the RAW after Greatest Royal Rumble and Backlash 2018 on the graphics during the their entrances 3 times already. They even said he won the Championship Belt and the Trophy (Indicating these just same type of awards (No Regins and no # days held). If that is the case than we might not need a page. Eventually Championship will go defuct. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope you should re-visit the page on wwe.com, wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/greatest-royal-rumble-championship. WWE recognizes Strowman as the Greatest Royal Rumble Champion for more than 12 days. User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist
 * Saying there is no reigns or number of days held is just ignorant Colton Meltzer. Braun won the GRR Championship AND a Trophy. That doesn't mean they are the same thing.  Goku 4 Star  Talk 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Until WWE recognizes Braun Strowman as WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Champion on TV, because WWE has not for 3 times already. (WWE Raw after Greatest Royal Rumble, Backlash (2018), WWE Raw after Backlash) on theirs graphics during entrance or from announcer. There going many people disagreeing ,despite the keeps, to keep this page. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's not entirely true. They did show a graphic of Braun Strowman wearing the belt on the night after the GRR when promoting Backlash. Michael Cole has called him the GRR champion on commentary. They had GRR championship graphics the night of as well, clearing indicating it's a championship. I was commenting on this statement you made by the way: "Indicating these just same type of awards (No Regins and no # days held)", which is ignorant of the Title History section on WWE.com. Either way the title has gotten a lot of coverage and is clearly notable. As well as the fact that you just can't argue that it's not an officially recognized Championship.  Goku 4 Star  Talk 02:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with WWE Greatest Royal Rumble There's a lot of debate about just what the hell this thing is but it's really irrelevant in terms of notability. Most of this information is duplicated from the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble article in the first place, there shouldn't be a second article until we know what the hell this is and it passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2018 (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.