192:"Listcruft/fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. Note that finishers are an important part of professional wrestling as a sport; they are the signature move most identified with the individual wrestlers and often times serve to help define them. Listing them also allows readers to compare wrestlers who use similar finishers or, on occasion, share the same finisher. The article does appear to be referenced with four different external links to finishing moves as well. The only thing I see, therefore, is that it would be useful for verification purposes to provide inline footnote citations for each move pointing to a source that can verify the wrestler uses that move.
319:
a seperate list article that only lists the names of the moves sorted by wrestlers who use them as signature moves, possibly with a two or three word descriptive notatation, and links those moves to the main move article(s). I'm pretty sure this is similar to the set up we have now, but thinking from scratch that's probably how I'd set it up if I were doing it myself. It would allow readers to search for moves by name or by wrestler, but detailed information about the moves would be restricted to a single article and thus would be easier to maintain.
275:
a reader to want to use either method to find information. For instance, they might be thinking of a few wrestlers they like and want to look at their moves in one article. It's also possible for a reader to be interested in a particular move and want to find people that might have used that move at some point.
285:
lists of maneuvers under three other articles, and which could be merged with this one into one comprehensive article identifying the move, whether it's a hold/attack or throw, whether it's used as a finisher, and who uses it as a signature maneuver. Surely we should have one page devoted to maneuvers, not four?
315:
for the editors to maintain, and also makes it possibly harder for readers to navigate. Consolodating the information into one or two pages makes it easier to find the pages, and avoids duplication of maintainence, but in the case of extremely large articles can make the articles unwieldy to read and use.
318:
Personally I think a good set up is to have one article that lists all wrestling moves sorted by type and then alphabetically by name. The move article probably would have to be split, though, into two subarticles since there are hundreds of moves, which might make that article too large. Then have
314:
Ah, ok, that's actually an interesting question. I think what we both seem to agree we should focus on is the question "What is the best way to organize information about wrestling moves for Wiki readers?" Splitting information between three or four articles has the disadvantage of making it harder
274:
This is a case of having two different ways of indexing the same information. One is to list all wrestling moves, and then next to each move list wrestlers that use it as a finisher. The other is to list all wrestlers, and list all the finishing moves that wrestler used. Note that it's possible for
206:
This is a long list and has obviously been worked hard on. But my problem is it is repeating two things. The first being that every wrestler article already contains the information. The second is the actual move itself already has a page and is described on that page. This is less like a catalog and
220:
Just to reply, the purpose the list serves is to reindex the information found in the wrestler articles. Let's say a reader wants to compare for historical purposes wrestlers that have used a particular move or type of move as a finishing move. It would be extremely difficult to figure out who did
529:
imply that other types of articles fall under the qualifier of "indiscriminate collection of information". Of course, policy can change, and an article can fail to meet other standards like notability guidelines or verifiability. But as written it is incorrect to say that an article violates the
490:
sources at the end. However, it doesn't do in-line citations, so it's very difficult to tell which information is referenced and which isn't. Therefore I think the references need to be cleaned up to make them more readable and useful, but I don't believe this would be a case where the article is
284:
I'm not sure you understand my point here. I'm not debating the value of having a list of moves that identifies which wrestler uses them and wrestler pages that list their moves. What I'm doubting is the necessity of having a separate section devoted to finishing maneuvers when we already have
228:
list articles have redundant information with other articles. A list of movies or books or games or people will always be constructed using information found in the associated main articles. There are probably no lists on
Knowledge that use information not already found in the corresponding
354:
Perhaps some of the various I-don't-know-how-many millions of pro wrestling fans there are worldwide? If even 5% or 10% of wrestling fans were interested in reading about signature moves, that would represent possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm not a
507:
Absolutely an indiscriminant collection of information. The clause has traditionally been given a fairly broad interpretation on AfD. Also pure listcruft, but commentators above are right that that is a weak deletion reason at best and fairly subjective.
229:
articles for individual entries. The point of lists, then, isn't to provide "new" information, but is rather to reorganize and summarize existing information in a form that is useful but not easily accessible by reading the individual articles themselves.
416:
does not delve into list articles such as this one. It has a very narrow set of consensus categories of problem articles, none of which seem to apply to this one. This would be an inappropriate use of that "indiscriminate collection" section.
525:. Most of the editors who have replied in that discussion on this section of policy agree that there is a common misconception on how broadly that part applies. It is specifically written as to only indicate areas of broad consensus, and does
88:
83:
92:
75:
207:
more like a list. The good note I can only think of is for those who are actually starting up wrestling can view this list and decide what kind of signature finisher not to do or what to do!
171:
Another great resource for wrestling fans like myself, but I think I'd have to agree that it's a bit overboard to have a list like this, when it's probably available elsewhere. Unsourced, so
449:"Purposeless" is in the eye of the beholder and doesn't seem to pass the Pokemon test. His remaining reason, WP:NOT, doesn't seem to contain a valid argument against this type of article.
115:
341:
Now can you tell me what type of people would use this information? why? and who on earth would really want to be so geeky as to compare wrestler signature moves!!
221:
which move by simply perusing individual wrestler articles. By having this information in a list format, though, it provides a single source the reader can visit.
367:, a previously featured article. Just because something seems silly or pop culture doesn't mean it isn't valuable for a large number of potential readers.
538:
512:
495:
477:
465:
453:
437:
421:
403:
387:
371:
345:
323:
309:
279:
265:
233:
211:
196:
184:
166:
146:
130:
57:
359:
fan, and I'm not personally interested in knowing every little detail about it, but that doesn't make it any less notable or important to the people who
288:
300:
261:. Is there an argument for merging all three of those with this and identifying which fall into which category instead? ...or something... --
79:
71:
63:
521:"The clause has traditionally been given a broad interpretation" is an incorrect assumption, as evidenced by the current discussion at
17:
254:
258:
250:
296:
555:
400:
363:
care about
Pokemon. You don't see me going around calling people "geeky" because they are interested in reading
36:
554:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
445:
Fancrust/Listcruft is not a sufficent reason for deletion. "It is not a policy or guideline" as mentioned in
450:
139:
306:
292:
262:
163:
127:
462:
180:
384:
522:
434:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
509:
53:
531:
413:
396:
176:
159:
123:
535:
492:
418:
368:
320:
276:
230:
193:
143:
109:
474:
342:
208:
49:
534:
unless it falls under one of the types of information described there.
364:
356:
548:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
446:
105:
101:
97:
530:"indiscriminate collection of information" section of
249:: we already have separate listings/categories for
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
72:List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers
64:List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers
486:Just to comment, the article does appear to list
558:). No further edits should be made to this page.
491:impossible to verify or no references exist.
399:an indiscriminate collection of information.
162:an indiscriminate collection of information.
8:
412:The "Indiscriminate collection" section of
190:Keep, but update references to be in-line
461:This is exactly what I was looking for.
305:Oops, sorry, should have signed it! --
7:
447:http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:FANCRUFT
24:
122:Listcruft/fancruft, purposeless.
303:) 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
255:Professional wrestling attacks
1:
259:Professional wrestling throws
539:17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
513:11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
496:16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
478:11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
466:08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
454:12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
438:20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
422:21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
404:14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
388:14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
372:16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
346:23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
324:17:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
310:23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
280:23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
266:22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
251:Professional wrestling holds
234:17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
212:12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
197:22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
185:21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
167:14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
147:13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
131:07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
58:19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
575:
551:Please do not modify it.
138:This AfD nomination was
32:Please do not modify it.
395:No encyclopedic value.
291:comment was added by
523:the WP:NOT talk page
433:A very useful entry
401:One Night In Hackney
142:. It is listed now.
451:Vladamire Steelwolf
304:
183:
56:
566:
553:
473:unless sourced.
383:- Very usefull.
293:Batsnumbereleven
286:
179:
113:
95:
52:
34:
574:
573:
569:
568:
567:
565:
564:
563:
562:
556:deletion review
549:
287:—The preceding
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
572:
570:
561:
560:
544:
543:
542:
541:
516:
515:
501:
500:
499:
498:
481:
480:
468:
456:
440:
427:
426:
425:
424:
407:
406:
390:
377:
376:
375:
374:
349:
348:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
269:
268:
239:
238:
237:
236:
222:
215:
214:
200:
199:
187:
169:
152:
151:
150:
149:
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
571:
559:
557:
552:
546:
545:
540:
537:
533:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
511:
506:
503:
502:
497:
494:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
476:
472:
469:
467:
464:
460:
457:
455:
452:
448:
444:
441:
439:
436:
432:
429:
428:
423:
420:
415:
411:
410:
409:
408:
405:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
382:
379:
378:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
344:
340:
337:
336:
325:
322:
317:
316:
313:
312:
311:
308:
302:
298:
294:
290:
283:
282:
281:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
240:
235:
232:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
213:
210:
205:
202:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
168:
165:
161:
158:, listcruft,
157:
154:
153:
148:
145:
141:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
129:
125:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
550:
547:
526:
504:
487:
470:
458:
442:
435:Kris Classic
430:
392:
380:
360:
338:
246:
242:
225:
203:
189:
172:
155:
121:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
443:Strong Keep
431:Strong Keep
381:Strong Keep
204:Soft Delete
164:Terence Ong
128:BlackDart D
510:Eluchil404
140:incomplete
224:In fact,
463:Clashwho
301:contribs
289:unsigned
177:Tony Fox
116:View log
536:Dugwiki
493:Dugwiki
419:Dugwiki
369:Dugwiki
365:Torchic
357:Pokemon
339:Comment
321:Dugwiki
277:Dugwiki
231:Dugwiki
194:Dugwiki
144:DumbBOT
89:protect
84:history
532:WP:NOT
505:Delete
475:Addhoc
471:Delete
414:WP:NOT
397:WP:NOT
393:Delete
243:Delete
181:(arf!)
173:delete
160:WP:NOT
156:Delete
124:WP:NOT
93:delete
385:DXRAW
343:Govvy
307:Dave.
263:Dave.
209:Govvy
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
488:some
459:Keep
297:talk
257:and
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:Talk
50:ST47
527:not
247:but
226:all
114:- (
361:do
299:•
253:,
245:.
175:.
126:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
48:.
295:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.