Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMahonism

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 of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McMahonism

This article serves no useful purpose. Only specific significant professional wreslting angles deserve their own page, and this isn't one of them

• This was introduced less than 48 hours ago, and is part of a larger angle that has been going on for months between Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon. It's too early to tell if this was a one week occurrence or if it will indeed continue, but I imagine it will at least continue through the rest of the month until Backlash. No reason to delete this so soon, let's wait and see how the storyline plays out. Genocidal 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• This article is pretty unnecessary. The only way I can see this deserving its own article is if The Mcmahonism thing continues beyond Backlash, which is very unlikely.
• Delete this with a chairshot to the back of the head. per nom and DL. ECW! ECW! 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wrestlecruft. --Eivind^t@c 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this, and ban all members of the IWC from this website!
• Delete. No verifiable evidence of this religion in outside world. As with most things associated with professional wrestling, it is a hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your efforts to ban McMahonism and rid this webpage are an indication of others here putting limits on freedom of expression and religion. VForVendetta 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe that Wikipedia has no patience for nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to create your own wrestling wiki. Fagstein 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is exclusive to certain topics now? Genocidal 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster — My delete vote stands, but nobody ever said that McMahonism is anything but kayfabe (i.e., a "religion" that's part of a wrestling angle); I think that's what this article's author was attempting to imply. If you're implying that some naive reader may interpret McMahonism as legit, then you're mistaken [[Briguy52748 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)]].

• Delete, nonsense Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-- for now. If the McMahonism thing is over and done with and never referred to again after Backlash, I'd vote to delete the article, as it would then refer to something that happened for two weeks and was over with. But McMahonism has the potential to be part of a larger storyline involving a stable of wrestlers loyal to Vince McMahon, and if that's what's going on here, then obviously the page should be kept. So let's wait and see before getting rid of the article so soon. ekedolphin 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- for now as well. If there are no more mentions of McMahonism after Backlash (I'd say giving it two episodes of Raw after the Pay-Per-View is a fair timeframe) then I'm for deleting or merging this into the article about Mr. McMahon as a small paragraph. Genocidal 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Write an article about it after it becomes big. Fagstein 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everyday i come to wikipedia to clean up "week-by-week" WWE accounts and tons of worthless fancruft wrestling articles. To what perpous do these ppl see that any article like this could be of any use to anyone.. i get so tired of it all sometimes --- Paulley
• Delete This article is just totally unescessary. spman
• Redirect to Vince McMahon. It's only been around for a few days and unnotable for its own article. --Oakster ^(Talk) 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vince McMahon per above. Can bring back as its own article if it actually lasts a long time in the WWE, which I doubt it will VegaDark 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vince McMahon. As others have suggested, if this lasts beyond Backlash and is continually brought up in RAW then the article can be brought back. Sohan.s 02:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep...and Delete i'd rather it not be deleted but there are more votes for the contrary. so whatever happens is fine with me. Drmagic 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vince McMahon.. its very important to the kayfabe storyline in the WWE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.61.77.41 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Clearly it's been referenced a few more times and is pretty early in the gimick. It's clearly not related to Vince McMahon the person but a specific attribute of the Vince McMahon character. It's outlasted the one PPV, and could easily become a popular gimic. Wait and see, there's no reason to get uppity and trash it just because it's new. Also, a few of the votes for delete just note that it's a nonsense gimick, this is true but needs to be put in the article itself. Tat 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vince McMahon as per VegaDark. --BillC 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect' to Vince McMahon. Worth a brief mention in his page but not sufficient enough for an article of its own.--Cini 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it. There's enough information here to make it a stand alone article. -King rich 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's one of the biggest angles in years, to delete it would be insane. Burgwerworldz 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the guy who suggests writing an article on this kayfabe religion after it becomes a significant wrestling angle. The idea that Sohan.s has (redirect and bring back if it is truly sigificant) is a good idea, however. However, it's still not significant enough for its own page ... yet. [[Briguy52748 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)]]
• Keep If, by definition, a religion is a set of rules to live by, then this has to be kept as it is a valid religion, kayfabe or not. Gretnagod 19:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Err ... "valid religion" and "kayfabe" in the same sentence? We most certainly do not, else any one of us could promulgate a "religion," and on the strength of its validity (surely more so than something WWE writers made up for a storyline) require Wikipedia to host an article on it. Nothankew. RGTraynor 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep--We can do another AFD in six months if needed. MrMurph101 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--For now. If it doesn't pick up...do away with it like the "Kiss My Ass Club" entry that was done away with in November...well the KMAC was at least mentioned now that I look at Vince's entry...so if this "religion" doesn't continue in the spotlight...follow the precedent
• Redirect or Delete. It's a neologism. It's advertisement. It's news at best. It isn't an article. Shenme 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.