Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the WWE Championship belt design

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of the WWE Championship belt design[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion, because creating a separate article just for a title belt design is pointless. And it doesn't deserve neither a WP:SPINOUT and WP:SIZERULE - the main WWE Championship article is at 41KB, as of now and History of the WWE Championship belt design is at 27KB. Nickag989^talk 19:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I disagree. The history of championship belts is a standalone subject which is lacking on Wikipedia. This is an area which will be expanded upon. Given the vast information online it is certainly not "pointless" to many people. The history of this specific title and it's various belt designs goes back decades with too much information to include in the separate WWE championship page (including belt creators, design details, material, debut dates, background history etc.). Many professional wrestling articles of a much smaller interest have WP:SPINOUT (TNA Hall of Fame etc.)Bbx118 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame in pro wrestling is radically different, but this is about the history of a championship belt design. We never create a separate articles for them, since it's redundant. Nickag989^talk 19:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. 'The Big Gold Belt' for example has it's own page. If you believe it's redundant, then by definition of the word you believe it had meaning before. What changed this? Do you mean irrelevant? This seems to be leaning towards a POV. This article also covers all designs in the history of the championship, not just one design. No valid grounds for deletion nor any proposed alternatives to deletion Bbx118 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Neutral - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I feel that the current WWE Championship article covers the designs well enough, but that's not to say that it can't be expanded into its own article if there is enough coverage that could talk about each design (the early designs may be a bit harder to find, unless their print sources have been uploaded online). In the meantime, I would suggest to at least add the sources from this new pending article to the design section on the WWE Championship article, as it needs sources. --JDC808 ♫ 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That section covers the title design belt much better than this article as a whole, even if it has the half size of it. Nickag989^talk 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section does not go into nearly as much detail as the new article; hence it's creation and sourcing. There is simply too much information to cram into the WWE championship page without it looking bulky. Perhaps it would make sense to merge that section of the WWE championship page to this new page, since some information from there is now here (but expanded upon)?Bbx118 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Expanded with what? Unreliable, unsourced content and poorly written sentences. That's why this article is too big. Nickag989^talk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE.com etc. is not "unreliable, unsourced content". Please refrain from insulting members and simply edit where you see appropriate if you believe there are "poorly written sentences" (POV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources that I deleted yesterday were clearly unreliable (am I saying that WWE.com is unreliable? never), because that's what I've done for a long time. As a nominator, I'm no longer going to edit this page. "The Big Gold" has its own article, since it's a historic professional wrestling championship belt that has represented multiple world championships throughout its history contested in various promotions. As far as the WWE Title goes, it spun off from NWA in 1963, it has represented the symbol of WWE since then, and it has undergone many name changes, title design (unlike the Big Gold Belt), unifications etc. There's clearly not enough material nor independent notability for its own separate article, due to the fact that the belt designs are part of the championship (the history of title holders is different). Nickag989^talk 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are not sources to merit keeping it. Some sections don't even have sources. If you really want to the article, put it in your sandbox and edit it as you can. Otherwise it needs to be deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The section at the article is enough. The material doesn't have sufficient independent notability for its own article. The belt designs are part and parcel of the championship, and unlike the history of title holders, it's not large enough to need to be spun out. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to merit keeping the article. It would take a long time to find enough sources to fufill the need for amount of sources it would require. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Original article not large enough for this to be a spin-off. Majority of sourcing is primary. Nikki♥311 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - within-fictional-universe cruft. Yes, WWE is fiction. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Everyone here knows that, no need to point it out.★Trekker (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (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.