Logan Paul Profile Deletion (Potentially the WWE-verse with it)

[CuteAnimeNekoGirl99]

Everyone here has made it very clear that they feel that the amount of work put into WWE pages should immediately disqualify it for deletion, yes.

That isn’t entirely the reason I put this here as it’s mere existence for over two years already after a decently sized discussion on the verse’s validity had already been had.

To me nothing has changed in policy since that time and all these points I’ve mentioned are very much still valid and have been since two years ago

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Ngl, I don't think that's true. I think most people who want to weigh in for the defense, have or will be contacted.

No offense, but this opinion seems a bit... Detritus, for lack of a better word. This just seems like a way to side step the proper procedure for things, and the simple fact of the matter is that the title of this thread and the contents differ greatly. In a sense, the debating about deleting the verse, when the focus is on one character, can be seen as derailment, but more importantly, just because you think most people who want to talk have or will spoken, doesn't make it a objective fact. It would be much more likely that people who want to discuss the matter would be able to if a proper thread for such a thing was made. It's simply a matter of projecting it better so as to not misinform others of the purpose of the thread, or fail to catch the attention of someone who is interested. You wouldn't make a CRT dedicated to deleting the whole Spongebob verse be called "Squidward Profile Deletion" after all, for example.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

No offense, but this opinion seems a bit... Detritus, for lack of a better word. This just seems like a way to side step the proper procedure for things, and the simple fact of the matter is that the title of this thread and the contents differ greatly. In a sense, the debating about deleting the verse, when the focus is on one character, can be seen as derailment, but more importantly, just because you think most people who want to talk have or will spoken, doesn't make it a objective fact. It would be much more likely that people who want to discuss the matter would be able to if a proper thread for such a thing was made. It's simply a matter of projecting it better so as to not misinform others of the purpose of the thread, or fail to catch the attention of someone who is interested. You wouldn't make a CRT dedicated to deleting the whole Spongebob verse be called "Squidward Profile Deletion" after all, for example.

I've inspired new words to be used. I ought to be proud.

There is no procedure that you're referencing. Perhaps it should be, perhaps not- but CRTs having their objectives swapped is not uncommon. Verse deletion is, of course, a more serious matter, but given the great deal of voices speaking here, I fail to see what a new thread would even be needed for. If you have someone in mind, summon them.

I wouldn't lie in the title of the thread. However, it would be a legitimate discussion if the thread did veer that way on legitimate grounds (which this thread has).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Let it never be said I do not listen to my foes, even as I am said to mislead. The OP has been fixed, the title has changed.

 

[KingNanaya]

There is no procedure that you're referencing. Perhaps it should be, perhaps not- but CRTs having their objectives swapped is not uncommon. Verse deletion is, of course, a more serious matter, but given the great deal of voices speaking here, I fail to see what a new thread would even be needed for. If you have someone in mind, summon them.

I wouldn't lie in the title of the thread. However, it would be a legitimate discussion if the thread did veer that way on legitimate grounds (which this thread has).

I would agree with this, except for the fact that it pretty much started out as a "delete wwe crt" as soon as staff got in here.

I've inspired new words to be used. I ought to be proud.

they grow up so fast...

 

[DaMonkeMan]

That's great and all but I don't think that changes the overall problem.
You turned a thread that was just for Logan Paul being removed to a thread for all of it being removed, even though you could VERY easily make a thread for that instead.
Just editing it's title (without the consent of the OP btw) is.. Controversial.. To say the least.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Anyways, idc about Logan Paul (though personally I don't think it should be removed) and I'm against the franchise being deleted.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That's great and all but I don't think that changes the overall problem.
You turned a thread that was just for Logan Paul being removed to a thread for all of it being removed, even though you could VERY easily make a thread for that instead.
Just editing it's title (without the consent of the OP btw) is.. Controversial.. To say the least.

Perhaps you haven't read what I've said.

This is not against the rules. Deletion of the verse itself is controversial, that isn't a problem to me, at least. There's no point in making a new thread when we have a thread, with votes on either side, and with everyone gathered.

You're trying to disqualify consensus via a technicality that does not exist.

If you have nothing to say except discontent, then say nothing.

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

To me nothing has changed in policy since that time and all these points I’ve mentioned are very much still valid and have been since two years ago

literally this. so many higher ups have acknowledged profiles that are stage personas. and they just keep them up. (which is a good thing mind you)

ruling one or multiple verses out of the question while others can stay on the wiki is a massive double standard. and i feel like at the end of the day, we shouldn't remove WWE. And the stage persona floodgates should finally be opened

 

[Agnaa]

Would people be able to summarise the arguments for both sides, so I could properly weigh in?

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

Would people be able to summarise the arguments for both sides, so I could properly weigh in?

tldr from what i know: we kinda dropped logan paul and are apparently arguing that WWE as a whole should be deleted since their stage personas

I've brought up that several other pages already cover stage personas/fictionalized versions of real people. and the stage persona rule is almost never listened to and people just kinda ignore it. so as such saying we should remove WWE for the reason they're stage personas would be a massive double standard

at least thats what im picking up

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Perhaps you haven't read what I've said.

This is not against the rules. Deletion of the verse itself is controversial, that isn't a problem to me, at least. There's no point in making a new thread when we have a thread, with votes on either side, and with everyone gathered.

Yeah, for ONE PROFILE, not the ENTIRE VERSE.
You're practically derailing the thread by making it about something that's completely different from the OP.

You're trying to disqualify consensus via a technicality that does not exist.

If you have nothing to say except discontent, then say nothing.

Your ego makes Mount Everest look like an ant mound with the way you try to goad people into being silent on a matter and try to forcefully change threads into what you want them to be.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Would people be able to summarise the arguments for both sides, so I could properly weigh in?

Well:

Pro-Logan Deletion: He's Logan Paul and keeps doing bad stuff. Logan might still be considered more cameo and publicity stunt than Wrestler

Anti-Logan Deletion: Logan Paul the character should have minimal relationship to Logan Paul the person. Has been resigned for a multi-year contract and has appeared in enough events to be considered more than a cameo

Pro-WWE Deletion: Borders on usability-unuseability due to how it interacts and responds to IRL events. A stage persona is a different thing from an acting persona. Plenty of Wrestlers are just the normal person's personality but flanderized in some fashion.

Anti-WWE Deletion: WWE has scripted storylines and people with strong Kayfabe like Undertaker or Ultimate Warrior meets criteria for a character more so than a person. It should count as a fictionalized story that happens to involve organic reactions to IRL stuff.

 

[KingNanaya]

Your ego makes Mount Everest look like an ant mound with the way you try to goad people into being silent on a matter and try to forcefully change threads into what you want them to be.

there are better ways to phrase this. this is not one of them

 

[DaMonkeMan]

there are better ways to phrase this. this is not one of them

Hm.
Perhaps I went overboard, and I can apologize for that, but my general point still stands:
He's acting as if he makes all the decisions and what not. Which is just.. No, man.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Well:

Pro-Logan Deletion: He's Logan Paul and keeps doing bad stuff. Logan might still be considered more cameo and publicity stunt than Wrestler

Anti-Logan Deletion: Logan Paul the character should have minimal relationship to Logan Paul the person. Has been resigned for a multi-year contract and has appeared in enough events to be considered more than a cameo

Pro-WWE Deletion: Borders on usability-unuseability due to how it interacts and responds to IRL events. A stage persona is a different thing from an acting persona. Plenty of Wrestlers are just the normal person's personality but flanderized in some fashion.

Anti-WWE Deletion: WWE has scripted storylines and people with strong Kayfabe like Undertaker or Ultimate Warrior meets criteria for a character more so than a person. It should count as a fictionalized story that happens to involve organic reactions to IRL stuff.

Was in the middle of making my reply, but I think Qaw summed it up perfectly here.

 

[Sparkive]

This is not against the rules.

Technically it is, although it is written as a recommendation, in the discussion rules:

Generally try to avoid derailing content revision discussion threads from the original topic, We cannot deal with too many different subjects at once, so it is usually better to start a new thread instead.

That was very far from the original theme.

Now, seriously, can we just put that aside for now?, all that talk is technically derailing the already derailed discussion (this goes for everyone, including me).

 

[Agnaa]

Well:

Pro-Logan Deletion: He's Logan Paul and keeps doing bad stuff. Logan might still be considered more cameo and publicity stunt than Wrestler

Anti-Logan Deletion: Logan Paul the character should have minimal relationship to Logan Paul the person. Has been resigned for a multi-year contract and has appeared in enough events to be considered more than a cameo

Pro-WWE Deletion: Borders on usability-unuseability due to how it interacts and responds to IRL events. A stage persona is a different thing from an acting persona. Plenty of Wrestlers are just the normal person's personality but flanderized in some fashion.

Anti-WWE Deletion: WWE has scripted storylines and people with strong Kayfabe like Undertaker or Ultimate Warrior meets criteria for a character more so than a person. It should count as a fictionalized story that happens to involve organic audience growth.

The rule against stage personas seems intended to disallow profiles that are for characters performed by the real-life equivalent of that character, and who either:

1. Have little to no impact on the actual story of something with one (guest features on TV shows).
2. Exist in a partially-fictionalised presentation (educational TV shows and YouTube videos, certain music videos).

Logan Paul seems like it would risk falling into the former, but I'm not familiar enough with his appearances to know how important he is to the WWE canon. I can't see WWE as a whole getting hit by this.

Given those summaries of the arguments, it seems like pro-deletion folks, for both issues, aren't presenting arguments that get in the realm of what I'd consider viable.

On the other discussion; a new thread does not need to be made. This thread is not long enough, or sufficiently different enough, to deserve that. Doing so would just waste time.

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

yeah so stuff like WWE (and youtubers but thats offtopic) should be fine?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Given those summaries of the arguments, it seems like pro-deletion folks, for both issues, aren't presenting arguments that get in the realm of what I'd consider viable

Personally in my view that's why the verse itself should remain. John Cena the character had an active impact of the direction of the story.

Logan Paul idk.

 

[Agnaa]

yeah so stuff like WWE (and youtubers but thats offtopic) should be fine?

I think so for WWE. For YouTubers it depends a lot. We'd only consider their content that's wholly story-focused/fictionalised.

Stuff like The Science Asylum or AVGN which are mostly educational/review videos, with occasional skits that have story and continuity, won't count.

Videos which are entirely story, aside from maybe an obviously OOC intro/outro such as Exurb1a and FilmCow will have those story-based videos count.

 

[Omegabronic]

Perhaps you haven't read what I've said.

This is not against the rules. Deletion of the verse itself is controversial, that isn't a problem to me, at least. There's no point in making a new thread when we have a thread, with votes on either side, and with everyone gathered.

You're trying to disqualify consensus via a technicality that does not exist.

If you have nothing to say except discontent, then say nothing.

he didn't look like he was wanting to disqualify, but just that this would make it harder for the supporters of the verse to know this thread and that it exists, i have no side on this tho

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

I think so for WWE. For YouTubers it depends a lot. We'd only consider their content that's wholly story-focused/fictionalised.

Stuff like The Science Asylum or AVGN which are mostly educational/review videos, with occasional skits that have story and continuity, won't count.

Videos which are entirely story, aside from maybe an obviously OOC intro/outro such as Exurb1a and FilmCow will have those story-based videos count.

ah, F in the chat for the AVGN dream

but i always have my backup, and luckily he has way more arguments in his favor
once again though thats for another thread!

 

[CuteAnimeNekoGirl99]

at this point, it'd be better to just dedicate this to the verse deletion rather than the logan deletion as they cover some very different issues and at this point that is the point many people are now looking at

To give the very bare bottom. Bare minimum there should be no complete nuking I've made my stances on the Undertaker and Kane very clear they are their own characters no matter how much you cut it

and the majority of the superstars are very much their own written characters. They are not stage personas not one bit given they have extensive scripting processes and writing upon their conception

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hm.
Perhaps I went overboard, and I can apologize for that, but my general point still stands:
He's acting as if he makes all the decisions and what not. Which is just.. No, man.

I've only silenced voices that are being shitposters on a serious matter, or are otherwise unnecessarily clogging the thread.

I've also made it clear that I invite other staff members to vote.

What you mean is that I do not accept what has been offered as a defense. It can be agitating, for sure, to be told that someone disagrees, especially when the individual can vote properly on the matter and you cannot- I do not say this to flaunt perceived power, I have none. I say this to say that I understand why you're acting like an asshole and do not blame you for it.

Agnaa's opinion is noted.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Logan Paul idk.

To sum it up...

Logan Paul last year signed a contract with WWE.

Throughout the past year, he's competed in a total of 5 matchups, and he has appeared in a handful of RAW and Smackdowns.

In those 5 matches, Logan Paul was basically built up as a kid with arguably the most potential out of any 'outsider' to make it big in the WWE. He's had main event rivalries with the likes of The Miz, Seth Rollins, and Roman Reigns, the latter of which being the current WWE Undisputed Universal Champion, and the company's biggest star by a good margin.

Logan would've likely had more matches if he didn't get injured after his match with Roman.

After his match with Seth at Wrestlemania, Logan renewed his contract in the WWE. He has yet to feature in a big storyline since resigning.

To summarize, Logan has had way more appearances in the WWE than basically any other outsider/celebrity, and has competed in multiple star-studded matches in the past year since signing his contract with the WWE.

 

[KingNanaya]

I've only silenced voices that are being shitposters on a serious matter, or are otherwise unnecessarily clogging the thread.

don't lie, I see you liking my posts

 

[DemonicDude]

WWE is not equal to movies, for sure. Vin Diesel's stage persona is not Dominic Toretto, Tom Holland's stage persona is not Spiderman- these are characters they are hired to play. It is not equivalent to the Undertaker, which is just Mark William Callaway. For a common sense difference: if you look at Vin Diesel's wikipedia page, nowhere would it mention "also known as Dominic Toretto, Shane Wolfe, etc, etc". It would say that for a WWE performer, however.

It is just those guys as their stage personas.

It is no different to CalebCity, AngryVideoGameNerd, etc etc.

There is no difference, and we should not have either.

Nobody on this planet is on Marvel and D.C level (Not even anime as far as "popularity goes" but WWE is a billion dollar promotion NOT ONLY known for their weigth but their Movie departement themselves and some of these are high budet movies then.
What if THE MIZ appears in another marine movie ? do we delete his profile or something then.

What about WWE Studioes

WWE Studios - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaMonkeMan]

I've only silenced voices that are being shitposters on a serious matter, or are otherwise unnecessarily clogging the thread.

I've also made it clear that I invite other staff members to vote.

What you mean is that I do not accept what has been offered as a defense. It can be agitating, for sure, to be told that someone disagrees, especially when the individual can vote properly on the matter and you cannot- I do not say this to flaunt perceived power, I have none. I say this to say that I understand why you're acting like an asshole and do not blame you for it.

Agnaa's opinion is noted.

I'm just saying you've been a tad condescending and immature through most of this and it's kind of irritating.
I also don't truly believe this comment is genuine, reason is in the previous sentence.

WWE Supporters Try Not To Dismantle Their Own Argument Challenge (Fully Impossible)

Also, how is this not a shitpost on a serious matter?

 

[Omegabronic]

I think so for WWE. For YouTubers it depends a lot. We'd only consider their content that's wholly story-focused/fictionalised.

Stuff like The Science Asylum or AVGN which are mostly educational/review videos, with occasional skits that have story and continuity, won't count.

Videos which are entirely story, aside from maybe an obviously OOC intro/outro such as Exurb1a and FilmCow will have those story-based videos count.

just asking quickly, but what if it has a lot of continuity and even several recurring characters?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm just saying you've been a tad condescending and immature through most of this and it's kind of irritating.
I also don't truly believe this comment is genuine, reason is in the previous sentence.

Also, how is this not a shitpost on a serious matter?

Nobody's perfect man, I get agitated by y'all too. Especially when I hear what's been goin' on behind closed doors.

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

just asking quickly, but what if it has a lot of continuity and even several recurring characters?

i'd say it counts (im totally just saying this so i can make the scott the woz profile he literally has videos dedicated to the scott the woz lore)

 

[Agnaa]

just asking quickly, but what if it has a lot of continuity and even several recurring characters?

All of the channels I've mentioned have that (except maybe Exurb1a?) so it doesn't really change my point.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Especially when I hear what's been goin' on behind closed doors.

Huh

 

[Agnaa]

Monke/Bambu, if you're gonna continue this heart-to-heart about off-site behaviour, please do it on message walls, instead of this thread.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

I'm just saying you've been a tad condescending and immature through most of this and it's kind of irritating.
I also don't truly believe this comment is genuine, reason is in the previous sentence.

Also, how is this not a shitpost on a serious matter?

I ***** with you Monke, but it is hypocritical to criticize Bambu for that 'Challenge Impossible' comment when we've been ******** on him, too.

 

[DemonicDude]

I think the profile should be removed (which is presumably much to Randomguy's chagrin, lol) but how is Logan Paul comparable to Trump?

Donald Trump appear in WWE to set up a rivalry between him and company's owner both picked a wrestler for a big match at Wrestlemania and that's it.........




Logan Paul on the other hand is an active wrestler. He is part of the roster, He competes at PPV's with wrestlers and have excellent fights/matches.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Donald Trump appear in WWE to set up a rivalry between him and company's owner both picked a wrestler for a big match at Wrestlemania and that's it.........




Logan Paul on the other hand is an active wrestler. He is part of the roster, He competes at PPV's with wrestlers and have excellent fights/matches.

Thank you very much for the context.

I ***** with you Monke, but it is hypocritical to criticize Bambu for that 'Challenge Impossible' comment when we've been ******** on him, too.

I'm gonna drop this.
The more I talk about it the more I feel like the mods are going to erase me.

 

[DemonicDude]

Didn't say you didn't, you just read it as though I did. I did say they're an embarrassment and should not have been approved. We have rules against 'em.

The stuff above is just rehashing the same repeated ad nauseam stuff that's already been asked/answered on this thread so I will default to my past stance- if it's coming down to a vote, I vote no.


I'd definitely be against adding Broadway actors for the simple basis that they are signed up with X performing company, for sure, though plays also aren't really as good and pure a comparison as other personas- YouTubers are a great choice. Individuals like Markiplier and Jacksepticeye absolutely integrate faux supernatural elements into their routines (the whole Darkiplier and Anti shit from ages past), we would not allow a profile for them. Of course it's scripted. Nobody is arguing it isn't, it's just people need to keep hitting these strawmen in order to justify the WWE profiles- we need to pretend the issues with them are different from what they are so that we can argue in favor of their existence.

Like I said, a damn embarrassment.

Also Mr.Bambu people are saying WWE wrestler take "STAGE PERSONAS"
however this is false

John Cena in real life movies/dramas and commercial is known as John Cena.


But in WWE he is also known as John Cena.

WWE At 8:44 directly mentions he appears on Daily show




So in short YES. WWE are blurring the lines between Reality TV show and I fully agree with Mr.Bambu and Antvasima about Pro Wrestling verse.
HECK This verse made movie star Johnny Knoxville a Freaking movie star part of Wrestling PPV multiple times.




This verse is very controversial.

Gonna be honest, I find this thread to grow increasingly more uh, disappointing. Not that I am in much of a position to speak, but, certain people advocating for the Deletion of the verse kind of seem to be acting, somewhat rude and unreasonably un-willing to change in regards to their stance on the matter. I would also have suggested that those against the verse take the whole "Delete WWE" nonsense to a different thread, as this can be seen as a form of derailing, but we're reaching a point well past that bargaining stage, huh?

I'll just say it here, WWE is, in essence, just a Fictional TV show with a Live Audience to get some reaction

And WWE ACTIVELY USES Hollywood

The Rock (Dwayne Johson) appeared in RED NOTICE


and WWE All night promoted it but that's not it.....THEY MADE STORYLINE of it on the show.

https://comicbook.com/wwe/news/wwe-golden-egg-storyline-vince-mcmahon-why-red-notice-the-rock-netflix-paid-advertising/

Damage3245 said:
@Mr._Bambu I have no objections to all of WWE going.

Agreed

In the end Agreed with Mr.Bambu, Antvasima and Damage about verse removal.

 

[DemonicDude]

Logan Paul is a stage persona. He is still Logan Paul.

James Bond is a character. He is James Bond regardless of who portrays him.

Same John Cena is also John Cena no matter how many commercials and WWE matches he appears in. WWE actively talks about his movies.
So Yes agree with Bambu.