Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Layfield bullying and harassment allegations

Add links
Source: 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Layfield bullying and harassment allegations

John Layfield bullying and harassment allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am pretty skeptical this article should exist. First, it appears to remove the context of the situation from his wider career, which I believe leads to this being an Attack page here. Yes, sources exist, but a whole article? The very title says "allegations"; really, an article on speculation? Second, I am doubtful that the sources rise to the kind of national interest level that would indicate this deserves such a lengthy article. I am seeing this as in breach of

Wikipedia:Undue as much as my other issues. I think this needs to be re-merged with the John Layfield page. There appears to have been no real discussion of the splitting off of this content from the Layfield page on that page's talk page, so I think a fuller conversation needs to be had about the appropriateness of this page at the very least. In the end though, I'm just not sure this is notable enough independently from Layfield himself (who has his own page). Isingness (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of the article I just want to start of and say that I did not intend for this to be an attack on him or anyone else. I can agree that most of the content could be merged into his original article but I don't see how that makes it less of an attack or puts a bad light on him. The main reason I made it was becuse it was getting too big for to just be a section in his article, I brought it up with the wrestling project and I was meet with no resistence so I went ahead with it. I was kind of prepared for this to happen but I thought it was possible that the story would develop more in the future, since the issue seems to have been dropped mostly now since Ranallo signed an agrement with the company I feel like it's probbaly going to calm down. Another option which has also been brought up by other editors on the wrestling project is that it could be merged into an article by the name
    talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Hi Trekker, I do appreciate that generally the process is to spin off articles when the content becomes undue for the main page, and in most cases I would usually agree with this kind of article. I would also agree that Hazing in WWE would be an appropriate place for this too if the article is AFD'd with a merge consensus. I am by no means insinuating that you yourself did anything in the spirit of an attack; my concerns are about how we are addressing the content as policy. As regards Cosby, that was a case with a far higher level of public prominence (though I likely would have wanted a different title for that as well). One area we may differ, is in that I think the content about the topic in general is too extensive considering the limited amount of incidents discussed. In the end, I think in most other cases a merge discussion would be equally appropriate as an AFD to deal with that specific issue, excepting the concerns I raised above, which is why I chose to start an AFD instead. Isingness (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good. I feel like
talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
How about the Styles, Edge, Blackman, Renee and Hardy's situations then? Or the fact that many have said that this is a recurring problem in the world of professional wrestling, something which is endorsed by higher ups and has been for a long time? The fact that this is very simalar to the DeMott situation (and has been compared to that by some sources here) just tells me that this something which could easily be a subject of an article like Hazing in WWE/professional wrestling.
talk) 11:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I really don't think we can use most of them. Some, like Blackman and Muhammad Hassan, are told through third party accounts. Others, like Edge, didn't describe it as "hazing" or "harassment"; the stories resurfaced after the Ranallo speculation and were brushed off by JBL as "locker room pranks" which have been known to the internet for years.LM2000 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also worry that creating one article about all scandals would violate
WP:SYN.LM2000 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
At least in some cases should what Layfield believes it to be really matter when people like René Duprée clearly talk about what he claimed Layfield did to him as harassment? I also don't see how something being known for years but not largely acknowledged matters either. You know, I'm not upset that this separate article will more than likely be deleted but I am kind of disappointed that there has been a pushback at even acknowledging that this is has been reported as a reoccuring issue. As far as WWE go and not an individual level this is clearly being reported on by at least the Wrestling Observer and the Pro Wrestling Torch as being rooted in an old fashioned pro wrestling behaviour which dates back a long time and isn't receted by the higher ups.
talk) 12:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Layfield's side of the story does matter per
WP:DUE weight, and unlike Demott JBL isn't getting fired for this. That's why I suggested mentioning just the allegations with the most weight from reliable sources (Ranallo and Roberts).LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
But he openly admitted that he hazed people, like with the Miz. It's pretty clear that he simply doesn't think that that's a bad thing. As for only mentioning Ranallo and Roberts I refuse to agree with that, again, he openly admited to misteating Mizanin, and Dupree's accusations were also brought up by Paste for example, as were some others, the Styles incident for example has been reported repeatedly and seems to have had witnesses. The Hardy's examples were writen in their own WWE published book and describes Layfiled encuraging them to commit crimes. I don't see how excluding so many of the stories is apropriate at all. Again, this has been repeatedly reported as being a reoccuring issue, how is it good to just include the most recent examples then just becuse they sparked the debate? Would allegations of backstage mistreatment in WWE be a more appropriate title in that case, or would that be too broad and still POV?
talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that the number of allegations to include on his article, and how much weight they should be given, is something that should be worked out on JBL's talk page; two was my recommendation based on my interpretation of the sources. I don't think a separate article is appropriate per what Isingness, 86.3.174 and myself have said, but if one exists it needs "allegations" somewhere in the title, like the current one. I also don't want to come across as a Layfield defender here, I always try to rework a controversy section (
WP:NOTNEWS, some are only covered by unreliable sources, etc. As you said in a response above, this issue is dropped and has calmed down. It got a few weeks worth of play in the press in JBL's 20+ years as a public figure and he is left largely unaffected by the scandal. Compare this to the the Cosby allegations article, which blew up in late 2014 and continues with Cosby going to court in July.LM2000 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think you have to worry LM2000 I don't think anyone will accuse you of being Layfield defender or anything like that, I for one respects you immensely and think you're a great unbiased editor, (and probbaly a lot more experienced than myself). I do take everything you say into accout and I see your points, I just find it very unfair that some accussation would get ignored becuse the source that reported on them aren't quite as reputable as some of the others and that a larger issue isn't being accnowleged in general. As many of the sources state, this is very well a overarching problem in the backstage enviroment of the professional wrestling business and I do think that could do for it's own article, either confined to a spesific company like WWE or just the industry in general.
talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I respect your work, so I really don't like having to !vote this way. If the article is reshaped without enough changes I'm scared it'll come back to AfD again. I recently saw that the
National Basketball Association criticisms and controversies. I've often wondered why we don't have articles on the 1990s WWF scandals, that would be a good starting place for them and could hold some of this article if it's merged or deleted.LM2000 (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think something like the
talk) 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of these sources are not from exclusively wrestling sources but of rather mainstream magazines so this is not just some fan agenda on my or anyone else's part.
talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I also don't agree with the idea that particles like these have no reason to exist. If a controversy happens to be notable enough it is.
talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course articles on controversies and notable subjects are warranted, but unfortunately there is a tendency for wrestling fans to want to validate their own opinions and version of events on Wikipedia. Yes, the content is sourced and the edits done in good faith but that doesn't change the situation here, which is that a bunch of people have added (sourced) content to support the widely-held opinion among wrestling fans that JBL is a bully. Which, whether it is true or not, is not
WP:NPOV and not particularly encyclopedic content. Similar to the example of Reigns that I mentioned, which originally started because a bunch of people were adding sourced criticism to his career section, which I challenged and the consensus was to create a separate "persona and reception" section for that content, now that section has so much content that it was moved to its own article which is pretty much a week-by-week catalog of criticisms and negative fan reaction towards Reigns. Again, not really relevant or suitable for Wikipedia but people can't help themselves, and because the content is sourced, done in good faith and fits most editors' opinion then it's difficult to do anything to remove it. Not necessarily accusing you of this personally BTW, I know that you didn't add a lot of this content, it's just something that tends to happen.86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That's fair, I wasn't around when the Reigns split happened so I didn't that it was a recurring problem here. Either way it's pretty clear that consensus says that this article should not stay, can this be speed up by an admin or the like?
talk) 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe these allegations are notable, but the be allegations about this dude. Is he notable? If true, then this should be part of an article about him, or maybe something in an article about the WWE. Writting about allegations has a potential for libel so every claim must be really well backed up or deleted ASAP.--Pgapunk (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't a merge mean that? I mean this title would be a redirection to that section of the John Layfield article?--Pgapunk (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is the appropriateness of the title, so a redirect wouldn't solve that particular problem. Deletions don't mean this content can't go back to the JBL page though; I don't think anyone here is arguing that he isn't notable as one of the most prominent wrestlers of the last twenty years. Isingness (talk) 22:53, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Layfield_bullying_and_harassment_allegations&oldid=1137953696"