Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Slam Championship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Davnel03 25th February

Grand Slam Championship[edit]

Grand Slam Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is almost completely unsourced, and the only source it lists is unofficial and known to use original research. I don't believe that any sources exist due to the fact that many sources were searched for during to course of recent disputes at Talk:Triple Crown Championship. The subject is notable, but not verifiable. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fancruft that belongs on a wrestling Wiki instead. RobJ1981 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.No different than a Super Bowl article, it's just the sport is less popular.Rlevse 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disputed, no proper sources are found other than a mention in passing on a WWE website and an essay from a fan site. It's total OR and it is never mentioned on television and people with this supposed honor are never referred as that outside of hardcore wrestling fans. This and the Triple Crown page should go. Booshakla 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep I don't know much about this, but from the minimal sources available, this appears to be a valid term and a very important accomplishment of the sport. In comparison, one would not, for example, delete the Triple crown (baseball) article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There needs to be multiple sources, not something on a website in passing.
  • Obvious keep - notable subject, something people would search for on wikipedia. THE KING 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I highly doubt this is something that someone would search for here, get specific reasoning if you want to prove an "obvious keep"
  • Strong Keep - Used MANY times on TV over the years and the official website as an important accomplishment for guys like Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and Kurt Angle. --Maestro25 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have watched WWE TV for years and have not heard it once. Prove it. Booshakla 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? WWE made a big deal when Shawn Michaels became the first Grand Slam winner. WWE also mentions it in both Shawn Michaels profile [1] and Triple H's profile [2]. TJ Spyke 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI actually heard in yesterday on the radio in a Scott Ferrall interview with Kurt Angle on Sirius Citicat 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is real, the problem is there are disputes (like whether the US Title counts or not). TJ Spyke 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Maestro25 reasonsOo7565 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After some intense Googling, the only time I could find this term used in this context is the fan site the article lists as a reference. Can any of the editors voting keep point to a legit wrestling publication that uses this term? I could change my mind, with a few actual sources, but I'm skeptical at best. --Djrobgordon 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Keep due to sources added while I was writing my previous comment. --Djrobgordon 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what sources? There is nothing but the fan site listed. Also, to other user, remember that notability does not equal verifiability, and an article must have both to be Wiki material. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he meant the sources I provided, which were to show it does exists. I haven't made up my mind which way to vote yet. TJ Spyke 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I wasn't aware that its existence was in dispute. Good sources that define what it is exactly and what titles are parts of it don't exist. That is what I was saying. There isn't a definition, so an article that isn't OR is impossible. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This seems to err on the side of non-notability, but I'd happily be proven wrong. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard it referred to on WWE television plenty of times in the past, they pushed the term pretty hard when Shawn Michaels became the first "Grand Slam" champion so it's not like it's a made up thing. MPJ-DK 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The term is well known and this article is unlikely to chamge in the future because there are not many Euro champs left who could win a World title. Darrenhusted 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Although this is an OK article its not relevant.TellyaddictEditor review! 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Davnel03 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though WWE hasn't used the term in a long time, it doesn't mean we should get rid of it. For example, even though the old American Football League doesn't exist anymore, should we wipe that article out as well because they merged with the NFL? The Slam is a noted accomplishment with sources to back it up, it should stay. Ohgltxg 23:25 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Popular professional wrestling term still used. Notable, period. Verifiable is a tough sunject though, I am still doing research The Hybrid, so I think we should hold off for a while until I give up researching for it. — Moe 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above, and no I wont prove it, or provide any sources, so don't waste both our times demanding I do so! Jcuk 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As pointed out in the article itself, the very term "Grand Slam" varies per the promotional needs of WWE. Shawn Michaels has been dubbed an achiever of the Grand Slam. Fine. Add that info briefly to his article. Suriel1981 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a pretty flawed logic. True, Shawn Michaels when he won the title was considered the Grand Slam Champion, since he was the only one to accomplish it. If he was the only one to win it, I would agree, merge it into Shawn Michaels article, but you can't since 6 or 7 (maybe 8 pending who's definition you would like to use) have accomplished this. Having a dispute on what definition it is (if we could agree on one definition) is no reason to delete the whole thing and say it never existed. — Moe 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite a reference from WWE themselves giving their current definition of what the "Grand Slam" is then I'll change my vote. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DUH! That has been the situation there for over 4 months. No source doesn't equal deletion of article. We have definitions, but we can't agree on which ones. WWE hardly chimes in on things and fails to post things like that. Asking for a source by WWE doesn't work anyways since we don't usually like primary sources, we usually need secondary sources from a outside source. The issue is not if that it exists. The problem is that we can't agree on the correct definition. — Moe 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suriel1981, if the article relating to Grand Slam goes then all wrestler listed on this article will have to have all comments about the Grand Slam removed, because you can't "add that info briefly" to the wrestlers individual articles if the actual Grand Slam article no longer exists. If the Grand Slam article goes then all references to it must be purged as well, otherwise this will create an argument to re-do the Grand Slam Article. Darrenhusted 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the references have to go? A simple addition to an article saying something along the lines of this title win meant that <insert name> had held every recognised title belt, an achievement referred to as the "Grand Slam". That's all it needs. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think in my comment I explained why all references would have to go, because there would be temptation to re-create the article to explain what a WWE Grand Slam is. Darrenhusted 14:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it could presumably receive speedy delete treatment. I understand your thinking but I don't personally agree. Suriel1981 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read Shawn Michaels book. It states that during a meeting before he was set to win the IC Title, one of the producers spoke up and said that if they went through with the win, that would mean Shawn has won every title in the WWE. Vince then said that it was important and they needed a name for it. That was the birth of the Grand Slam Champion. User:Killswitch Engage
  • Strong Keep To me, this article and the Triple Crown article are too related to have one exist without the other. GS borrows heavily from TC, and if the TC article stays, this should too. Also, enough people have given enough sources to keep it. Anakinjmt 07:24, 28 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grand_Slam_Championship&oldid=1219326360"