Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestling authority figures

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. Notability has been asserted, and while clear there is a need to potentially clean up the article, the consensus is to keep the page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling authority figures

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

Mostly seems to be

BB 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the idea of having these figures in wrestling is generally pretty stupid, but they are clearly a notable part of the shows and companies. This articles is also essential, as it is the target article on hundreds of wikilinks within articles (which, in itself, is a pretty clear assertion of notability). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would perhaps propose splitting this up - the ROH stuff can go into the main ROH article and there can be separate ones for TNA and WWE authority figures. But until that happens, keep this page. (Chill (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article clearly needs some work, as Elfoid pointed out, and ideas on how to improve it have previously discussed at
WP:PW. With that said, I agree with GaryColemanFan that this is a notable and frequently linked page.LM2000 (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment How an article is constructed often determines what kind of attention it attracts. This article as it exists does constitute fancruft, as well as undue weight and recentism. The scope of authority figures stretches far beyond the current crop of storyline-driven cable television shows. The board of directors of the
Don Owen Promotions. It could be safely stated that other promotions have suffered a similar fate. In other words, there's plenty of directions to take this article further, all of which establish notability. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 09:36, 30 June 2013 (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.