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, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Navou ^banter 03:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdly excessive detail. The article is unverifiable original research. One Night In Hackney 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling attacks[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Strong Keep: Wrestling holds and moves are a vary large part of professional wrestling... the terms are widley known and descriptions are necessary. If you were to remove these then you would also have to consider removing all Grappling position articles refering to their MMA use. Though i agree more needs to be done to cite references but that is posssible and could be made a priority for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. --- Paulley 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as for the original research idea.. it took me 5 minutes to add a reasonable reference to several of the main move artcles (DeathValleyDriver.com's BBBoWM page 1 2 3 is previous research into the subject)

Comment Those are links to a wrestling fan site and an unreliable source, and what you're linking to is original research. You can't reference original research by linking to more original research. One Night In Hackney 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: but its a start.. i agree more needs to be done esspecially for specific parts but removing them completely isnt gonna help -- Paulley 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Detail is a bad thing? More references would be a good thing, obviously, but that's no reason to wholly get rid of all of these pages like this. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being unverifiable original research is a fully legitimate reason to get rid of these articles. One Night In Hackney 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Keep~~ Merge per Paulley. Punch (strike) doesn't cite its references either but it can hardly be considered "original research". There is no authoritative manual on "how to wrestle"; these techniques are taught by word-of-mouth and through direct observation of professionals. The level of detail in the descriptions is necessary to avoid confusion, since many techniques are similar. Flakeloaf 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that referencing, merging, and clean-up need to take place, I can't agree that throwing the lot on a pyre is the right way to go about it. QuagmireDog 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. 'You can't reference original research by linking to more original research'? Where do you think research comes from? -Toptomcat 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:OR, and WP:RS, and also WP:V. One Night In Hackney 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original purpose of WP:OR was to "prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas" and to curtail "physics cranks". Describing a new way of spinning unicorns into plutonium and describing a series of ways men in their underwear can introduce each other to the floor are quite far-removed from each other. Oftentimes the only authoritative source on wrestling techniques are the wrestlers (and their commentators) themselves; is there a way one can cite an entire television series or six and put this debate to bed? Flakeloaf 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: So your proposal for deletion is that some of the research is not verifiable? Are you trying to suggest the moves don't exist, or simply trying to get the articles deleted on a technicality? These articles are important to those who want to learn more about professional wrestling moves and are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Keep. TheDingbat 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles fail to meet several Wikipedia policies, which none of the keep !votes have managed to address so far. If the information can be verified, please supply reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If time is taken other research is sure to be found, as for the Big, Big, Book of Wrestling Moves, it is a collaboration of several people researching into the subject along with infomation provided from other sources like "Lady's Gong Special Women's Pro-Wrestling Perfect Technique Guide" --- Paulley 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self published source, it's published on a wrestling fan site which the author is an administrator on. How does it meet WP:RS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Perfect Technique Guide is a published book from what i can gather.. so there's a realiable source i guess -- Paulley

It can hardly be classed as a reliable source if nobody here has read it. Does anyone know what the exact content of it is? What moves does it describe? What information does it verify? The mere existence of a book (which is in Japanese for the record) can't be used to claim the entire contents of every article are verifiable when the content is unknown. One Night In Hackney 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a single article, then remove those which do not have reliable sources, then prune it to a rational size. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained, but have already been said. --Calaschysm 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:V and WP:OR are not negotiable. These articles do not meet Wikipedia policies, please improve them so they do. One Night In Hackney 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please bring this up on a WikiProject's talk page before nominating 25 central articles for deletion. Say "hey, these articles don't really fit the criteria needed for a Wikipedia article. Could you try and get this fixed in two weeks, or I'll nominate them for deletion then?" Something like that would have been nice, but I'm sure that I'm an idiot and that's not how things work. --Calaschysm 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tags were added before the articles for nominated for deletion, no sources were added. Also given the number of "strong keeps" being posted by members of the Project for articles that should be deleted according to Wikipedia policy, the integrity of the Project is highly suspect. One Night In Hackney 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'The integrity of the Project?' Who appointed you guardian of the project? The policies are guidelines, constructed by community consensus and intended to be applied by their spirit, not to their letter. Consensus is much more vital to the integrity of the project than blind adherence to the letter of the law, and you seem determined to take on just about the entire community over this issue- which is an attitude htat is ultimately more destructive to Wikipedia than any less-than-perfect adherence to a ruleset. -Toptomcat 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominating this article for deletion is rediculous. Get over in Hackney, we all want the article kept. It isn't getting deleted. Kris Classic 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia policies are not negotiable, regardless of how many wrestling fans disagree. One Night In Hackney 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existance of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would seem to strongly argue for Wikipedia policies being negotiable. -Toptomcat 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This has nothing to do with what "we all want"; if the article contains unsourced statements then pressure should be applied to the relevant wikiproject to find and include such sources. I'm just not convinced an AfD is the best way to speed that procedure along. Flakeloaf 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Flakeloaf; Are you suggesting that the articles should be deleted because the moves 'do not exist' according to Wikipedia's policy? Because it certainly seems like that. TheDingbat 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I never said the moves don't exist according to Wikipedia policy. The content of these articles must be verifiable, that is non-negotiable, it is Wikipedia policy. As it stands, there are no reliable sources to verify the content. One Night In Hackney 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Most of these can be easily referenced. --- RockMFR 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Show me the reliable sources then please? One Night In Hackney 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would be the primary source, e.g. the wrestling event(s) in which these moves appear. By definition it doesn't get any more verfiable than that for works of fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Paulley -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Paulley DXRAW 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As well as not seeming notable enough, the articles are practically how-to guides. Also, the articles have the aforementioned problems. Readro 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The nominator is blissfully ignoring the section of WP:RS on primary sources, specifically for works of fiction. (Or works of kayfabe if you prefer) All of these articles meet WP:V at levels anywhere from "just barely" to "with flying colors", as each can be cited to various primary sources, e.g. the specific wrestling event(s) in which the move appeared. Some could use more overt citations, but remember that "inline" citations (e.g. "used by wrestler X in WrestlingEvent Y on wrestler Z") qualify. Also take a look at my repeatedly used arguments on citing fiction from the primary source. As to WP:OR, I agree that some articles contain some OR content, but this is neither a majority of the articles nor a majority of their content. This at most warrants a cleanup. Finally, we come to WP:N: every one of these moves is or has been a "signature" move by more than one major, mainstream wrestler. Notability is therefore asserted by the repeated use of the move by prominent figures in wrestling media. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These articles haven't been nominated for notability. You can't cite an event at which a move was used as a source. The information has to be verifiable, how do you suggest an editor verifies that not only did the move happen, but also that the move is correctly named? They can't go back in time. The only way that could be verified if the event (and also names and descriptions of the moves used) was covered by a reliable source. If you're referring to citing TV shows, I consider that problematic. How do you suggest an editor is able to verify information from a TV show that has aired and isn't repeated? One Night In Hackney 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quite simply put, you're raising policy issues that don't exist, as well as a situation that is ludicrous. WWE et al has been releasing compilation tapes and DVDs of wrestling events for years, meaning that this information exists in tangible, primary source form. While it would be ideal for everything to be available freely on the internet, that isn't how the world works. Some things require you to actually get off your duff and go out to verify them. You should always, always use an internet-based source if you can, but when there aren't any internet sources you use the primary source, e.g. the event. (Or recording thereof) This is permissable under both WP:V and WP:RS. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please point me in the direction of WWE et al released tapes or DVDs which not only have every single move described in the myriad of articles, but also contains a detailed verifiable description of each move. One Night In Hackney 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no requirement that one single DVD or source contain information on all of these moves; that is yet another misinterpretation of WP:OR, misapplying the "synthesis" requirement to those collections of information which do not advance a position. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: These moves are real, have been done, and it is NOT original research... Bad faith nom -- Jลмєs Mลxx™ Msg me Contribs 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has all this information been published by a reliable source? Seeing a move on TV and making up a description of the move is clearly original research. One Night In Hackney 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, actually, it isn't. Wikipedia's Original Research policy is summarized: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." These facts have both been published (in the form of a TV show) and do not advance any position. It isn't Original Research, plain and simple. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally incorrect. WP:OR states right at the start "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source.". It further states "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." Please show me how "Reverse Shining Wizard" isn't a neologism. One Night In Hackney 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the primary source is an unreliable source. Read WP:RS and WP:FICT; by definition the primary source is the most reliable source one can find for works of fiction. The same is true for your tangential claim about neologisms, as it is neither a neologism nor from an unreputable source; it is a proper name used in a work of fiction, attributed to that work of fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFrom WP:NEO - "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". Does Reverse Shining Wizard appear in a dictionary? No. Is Reverse Shining Wizard used outside of wrestling fans? No. By definition it is a neologism. From a recent discussion on ANI - "However, reading the article's talk page the issue appears to be that people are submitting original research that is based upon their firsthand viewing pirated copies of the television episodes, violating both the copyright of the publishers of the television show and one of our core policies at the same time". The descriptions of the moves are not sourced by the primary source. People are watching the TV shows, and making up descriptions of the moves based on seeing the moves. That is original research, as established above. One Night In Hackney 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With regards to WP:NEO, you are blatantly and clearly wikilawyering the definition of neologism. It is clearly not what WP:NEO sets out to stop. To support this, let's go over a few examples. Is "Patronus Charm" a neologism? No, it's a proper name for a magic spell that originated in a work of fiction. Is "Hadouken" a neologism? No, it's a proper name for a fighting move which originated in a work of fiction. Are you getting the picture here? This is no more a neologism than "Starship Enterprise" and "The Force" are.

Now, as to WP:OR, let me just quote the text of the policy again, under the part about citing sources, specifically citing primary sources: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. ... Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." (emphasis mine) Observation is not original research, no more than identifying where the lines of a map indicate country borders are is Original Research. Just because information is presented visually does not mean it cannot also be presented textually. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The techniques' respective names and the articles describing them are based on the association between a move observed during a professional wrestling event and the name given to it by the commentator. If the ringside announcer, whose job it is to describe to the fans what is happening with the correct jargon, expresses shock at the "octuple-bucky cokebottom buster" he just witnessed then that is what the maneuver is called. It could be said that all such terms are neologisms, but they do not have to pass WP:NEO because they are being used within the context of a larger work of fiction (see Muggle). I really do think a good approach here would be to treat professional wrestling as one large work of fiction, as other editors have suggested, instead of some scholarly discipline. After all, the "tombstone piledriver" is rarely seen in real (meaning Greco-Roman) wrestling due to its unfortunate habit of paralysing its victims. By that logic, the entire series of professional wrestling spectacles becomes the only primary source. To track down the origin of each hold and throw to a specific appearance by a specific wrestler in one evening's event (whether the tape of said event is "pirated" or not is not relevant to this discussion; "ABC Wrestling FaceMasher XXV aired 32 Octember 1984" suffices) over the course of thirty years of wrestling is a colossal effort; one that is theoretically possible mind you, but not one that will be accomplished in the time normally permitted an AfD discussion.

On the subject of "excessive detail", these articles belong to a Wikiproject run by enthusiasts of the spectacle. One needs to look no farther than Warhammer to see the amount of borderline-cruft chatter that works its way into these articles. Perhaps they could be merged into a hierarchical structure; i.e., one section devoted entirely to back breakers, with BRIEF descriptions on the variations between each technique instead of lengthy how-tos. Flakeloaf 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has infact been some movement towards that end. Articles like Sharpshooter (professional wrestling), Shooting star press, Doomsday Device and Mandible claw (the only move article not up for deletion). Though for many terms like backbreaker the variaty and array of variations make that almost impossible. -- Paulley 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all. Probably one of the most important aspects of professional wrestling and certainly notable. Normy132 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, [1], an official book released by WWE looking at signature moves. Also, a search through WWE.com should bring up some official stories. Mshake3 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect The problem with these articles is that they are obvious original research WP:OR not possible to have reliable sources as per WP:RS they are totally unverifiable WP:V. The names are neoligms also WP:NEO because they can't be sourced back to a specific author but are really just slang terms.--155.144.251.120 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's a big wall of text but go back and read my comment on works of fiction and how one can use the original broadcast as a reliable source about itself, which should stave off OR, NEO and V issues long enough for devotees to start adding some sources. Flakeloaf 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep All, Also, there are specific authors who created these names. Allow me list some of them: Michael Hickenbottom, Steve Williams, Paul Levesque, Steve Borden, Vince McMahon, Jim Cornette, Jason Reso, Mick Foley, Dwayne Johnson, THE WWE, TNA, ROH, and all wrestling promotion creative teams!!!!!! I could go on. They are the authors, they create the names, they innovate the manuevers, THEY ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES!!!!! John cena123 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Paulley. This was never brought up to WP:PW, and seeing as WP:PW has no specific category for unreferenced wrestling articles that aren't stubs we had no way of knowing about this as a group. Give the project time to reference this article rather then make us start over from scratch. Deleting it now would be counter productive. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide reliable, sourced information. We have the information, now let us verify it rather then make us write it all over again while we are verifying it. It will only waste everyone's time. -- The Hyb rid 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, can't believe this is being considered. It ought to be a speedy kept. Mathmo ^Talk 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, "Absurdly excessive detail"? Is that even a reason for deletion for a Wiki encyclopedia article? "The article is unverifiable original research"? Have you even tried to verify it before putting it up for AfD? Years of aired wrestling shows offer a massive amount of reference material to choose from, as do Videos/DVDs (Such as the training DVD released by Dory Funk Jr. that can be purchased from his website), wrestling Video Games, and Books (such as the one linked earlier, and The Professional Wrestlers' Workout & Instructional Guide by Harley Race, Les Thacher, and Ricky Steamboat, which offers a number of step-by-steps to wrestling moves listed on those pages, among others). Given the layout of the pages in question, quoting the required references could become a pain, which might be the reason it hasn't been done yet. Vladamire Steelwolf 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why hasn't this been closed by an admin yet? The consensus of the community could hardly be more clear. -Toptomcat 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably because there isn't a consensus which reflects an accurate depiction of the community's viewpoint. Most of the votes here are from members of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject, where on the discussion page people have been urged to vote en masse. Readro 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My bad it was more my own opinion and to inform other within the project to air their own veiws. Though there are alot of views from people from outside the project with the same opinion against one valid vote for deletion. --- Paulley 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, just for the record, I'm not a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject, and in fact rather dislike professional wrestling in general. I think that the objections to the OR accusations that have been brought up by the members of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject are perfectly valid. -Toptomcat 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can't believe these articles are up for deletion! These are probably the most helpful articles in the whole of the wrestling encyclopedia. Govvy 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the content is legitimate, but so are the concerns with OR and excessive detail. The "how to" guide concern does not strike me as serious because describing the move is necessary for understanding it. However, I suspect that most of those here who, as I did, heard about this AfD from WP:PW believe that no major changes are necessary to these articles. This is not the case. If there are no secondary sources that describe the way these moves are performed--no books, websites, magazines, etc.--and if no such sources are cited, then there is really no way to say that the articles pass WP:V and WP:NOR. For now, I'd be in favor of keeping the articles. However, if verifiability and excessive detail concerns are not addressed within, say, a month, and the vote were to come up again, I'd be inclined to favor deletion. Croctotheface 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I have to wonder if people just gloss over the parts of WP:OR they don't particularly like. Let me just say this again, but bolded: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FICT, and WP:V all permit the citation of primary sources for verifying information in a work of fiction. In this particular work of fiction, the wrestling events themselves are the primary sources. This is one of the most basic concepts of fiction-on-Wikipedia, and failing to understand it means you will consistently and repeatedly do things like incorrectly nominate articles for deletion. Every article here meets WP:V easily, and for the most part meets WP:OR. (Though some could use a little cleanup) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: This comment was intended mostly for Professional wrestling aerial techniques, Professional wrestling holds and Professional wrestling throws. The articles on a single move, such as the powerbomb, REALLY need to be pared down and perhaps merged with another article. I would have favored outright deletion, but there are arguably more trivial articles (such as those on individual pro sports teams' individual seasons) that have wide acceptance as encyclopedic. Croctotheface 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very confused. What Wikipedia policy determines 'excessive detail?' Why is detail a bad thing? -Toptomcat 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT holds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any and every fact does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia because it is factual. Articles are pared down all the time because the discussion of a topic or subject is too long and bloated with less-than-relevant details. Croctotheface 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly an indiscriminate collection of information. It is a collection of relevant and often-seen information from a large-scale, mainstream work of fiction that has been in existence for several decades. As I mentioned before, each one of these articles talks about a move (or "technique" if you must) that has been used by multiple wrestlers over many years. Hardly indiscriminate. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I'm in favor of keeping most of the articles, provided that sources are added in something of a quick manner. However, The level of detail in some respects is, in my view, unquestionably indiscriminate. The notion that I was responding to was something like, "No level of detail is too great for any article." That is not the case. Croctotheface 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Especially with Suplex, this move is used not only in Pro Wrestling, but in legit MMA fights. Aika 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:No one has mentioned the fact that the removal of these articles would cause disruption and confusion on every single wrestling article on wikipedia; leaving moves and terms mentioned on these articles with no real discription of what they are. Most move articles were moved out from the big five (aerial techniques, attacks, holds, double teams and throws) so that they could be referenced correctly (i.e. Sharpshooter (professional wrestling) and Mandible claw) The real problem is that with no central base of information these terms would end up being sorted out with its own article.. terms like Rydeen bomb, Complete Shot currently categorized under other terms would end up having their own articles.. leading us to have hundreds of articles. Though individual articles would be easier to referece. --- Paulley
- Comment: That's a very good point. To someone uninitiated to professional wrestling, an article on a given wrestler or event would be nigh-indecipherable without this set of articles to give it context. -Toptomcat 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Each move most definitely does not merit its own article. Beyond that, my hope is that the people who have been so vociferous in speaking in favor of keeping the articles will work equally hard to source the articles. Croctotheface 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my suggestion to Merge from Keep for this reason. The information is worth hanging onto but should probably be kept in a smaller container. Flakeloaf 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why im against the deletion.. because if it were to be deleted the articles would reapper as singaler terms and i dont want see an article for ever move -- Paulley 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all per above. VegaDark 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I just don't even see it. Why is this even nominated. Just like Speedy delete there should be a speedy keep. These would apply. Documented, notable, fitting W: policy this and W: policy that. As far as each move having its own page...ok wiki's not paper. Thing is if they all get merged then you going to get the people complaining about the size of the article. The nominator says "Absurdly excessive detail" would they prefer vague? An encyclopedia entry with excessive detail, the horror! I may get more info then I came for oh no. --Xiahou 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While excessive detail is not in this case a reason to delete, do you really think that any level of detail is appropriate for any article? The fact that WP is not paper does not mean that any subject should receive an article or that no article could be too long. Croctotheface 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "do you really think that any level of detail is appropriate for any article?" I don't think that is what Xiahou is arguing Croctotheface, but rather the notion that "Absurdly excessive detail" is used as an argument in favor of deletion in this discussion. His statement regarding the non-physical properties of wikipedia was a reinforcement of the absurdity of that stand point. Simply put, editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to take into consideration the length or verbosity of an entry (that otherwise meets the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia), especially when it's being written in plain English in a way to display the unique differences between various items, or creating a entry for an item that might need one due to having a large number of variants or a lengthy history. Additionally, Merging isn't much of an option due to the size of the meta article it would create. Personally, I feel that if articles like Axel_jump for figure skating have the right to exist and have, as far as I'm aware, never been challenged for "Absurdly excessive detail" and "unverifiable original research," why should these articles? Vladamire Steelwolf 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are claimed to violate policies against original research, neologisms, and verifiability, but the nominator is selectively ignoring parts of those policies that make them inapplicable, as some commenters have explained many times. The rather bizarre interpretation of WP:NEO being used—that a term used only in a limited community and nearly unheard of out of it is a "neologism" in Wikipedia terms, even if within that group the term is understood and the definition widely agreed upon, regardless of how long it has been in use—would mean that practically any jargon term not taught in grade school would be a "neologism". That's mind-boggling. — Gwalla | Talk 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles aren't original research or unverifiable. These moves are identified by the television announcers as they happen, and broadcasts of wrestling events where the announcers identify the moves can serve as references. I haven't watched wrestling in quite some time but I believe that there are several broadcasted events each week, one week of TV watching for reference gathering could provide references for a large swath of frequently-used moves. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all - It sounds to me like the nominator (not a real word i know) has something against wrestling or else NO knowledge of it and wants to cripple the entire Wrestling Wiki project on a technicality, deleting these articles would be an absurd move and only prove to sow that Wikipedia is more concerned with its own petty technical rules than to actually serves its fuction: To be a comprehensive guide. As someone learning Pro Wrestling these pages re a valuable asset, and I for one would have a difficult time without them, I am sure others are in the same boat as me there. Absolutely Keep keep keep keep keep, over and over again.

-- Cosmic Larva Cosmic Larva 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Removing all of these articles is ridiculous. Why would you need references for wrestling moves? Are you saying that they don't exist? Makiyu 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and revoke proposer's posting privileges for 30 days. This is trolling. --ChrisP2K5 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to bad faith nom - it really seems like the original nominator had contradictory reasons as to why they should be removed. A lot of said that the reasons cited are inapplicable with regards to the article's context. Nominator also nominated multiple articles along the same vein, and so the nomination may be viewed as an attempt to undermine continuing work of article building in the subject matter. An RFC on the original nominator or admin action may be necessary. kelvSYC 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep due to bad faith nom - The original nominator has admitted on his user page that he despises professional wrestling; it is obvious that he is merely electing them for deletion due to his bias against the subject matter. Fhb3 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)fhb3[reply]

Comment - Fhb3, that wasn't him that put it there. Sorry. That was a joke. I messed with his page cause I was ticked and thought that might be true. I'll take it out right now. While I do agree that there might actually be bad faith involved, I want to make it clear that I put that "admission" there as a joke and that I am taking it out right now. Hickney did not actually admit to anything. Thank you very much. 63.215.29.185 10:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it was already removed. Nevermind then. 63.215.29.185 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...don't do that ever again. WP:POINT may not be official policy, but it can result in you getting blocked in some cases. — Gwalla | Talk 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of God, some merciful admin please close this AfD and end the pain. -Toptomcat 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.