Talk:Public image of Roman Reigns

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by 72.239.46.195 (talk · contribs) on 8 August 2017 with the comment: this doesn't warrant it's own separate page. Put it as a subsection of his main page. It was contested by LM2000 (talk · contribs) on 04:04, 8 August 2017 with the comment: has survived merge requests related to that section

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Professional wrestling Low‑importance Public image of Roman Reigns is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Roman Reigns on 15 November 2016. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Professional wrestling championship#World championship|world title]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

On 5 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Persona and reception of Roman Reigns to Public image of Roman Reigns. The result of the discussion was moved.

I don't mind this page, I just think it's a little far fetched to make an entire article about Roman Reigns negative fan reaction. PaulG524 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admins didn't create this page. Actually, the guy that created this page has been indefinitely blocked. Still, this article has survived a merge discussion and RfC on Talk:Roman Reigns, so consensus is on its side.LM2000 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It's a decent article actually. I was just curious. PaulG524 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulG524: Feel free to raise any specific concerns about it here, on the article's talk page. For example, any sections which you think are unfair, place undue weight on something, not appropriately neutral (in either direction), etc. The relevant policy covering those things is WP:NPOV. Remember to set any personal bias aside in that consideration, and be as objective as possible about it. Another key policy is WP:BLP, covering any controversial or potentially defamatory content about people, particularly if not well supported by reliable sources. Constructive criticism is generally always welcome, and constructive editorial discussion is a major purpose for the talk page. Murph9000 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article may have started with good intentions, but it stands as a Roman Reigns hate party, with superfluous detail on every boo the guy ever received. Given that the man is dealing with leukemia, Wikipedia could do without such a mean-spirited page. The fans at Monday's Raw were overwhelmingly supportive, and WP:UCS tells me they won't be booing a cancer survivor if and when he returns, so "the fans won't budge" stuff is now history.

That Reigns had trouble getting over as a singles babyface can easily be covered in a single paragraph within his own article. Sharonaj (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things to consider here, namely WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG. The bottom line is that WWE has spent four years trying and failing to establish Reigns as the face of the company. During that time commentators considered the venture one of the biggest failures in years, a war on the fans, and said the whole thing boomeranged into actually making him one of the most hated wrestlers. We had at least three discussions during that time (A merge request, an RfC and an AfD) and decided that this warranted an article for being a significant event in wrestling history. Nothing that happens in the future can change that all of that stuff happened in the past.

A thing to consider is that perception of individuals is fluid and changes all the time, see Public image of George W. Bush as an example. We detail several instances in this article where the crowd sided with Roman; hopefully he is able to recover and has a successful face run later on so that we can detail that too.LM2000 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it exists in such details, s should that of Lex Luger, John Cena, Stone Cold, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart and LOTS of others. I think it's stupidity to keep and doesn't seem neutral. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. We could and should have articles on a bunch of similar subjects... on a personal level, Cena killed my interest in WWE over a decade ago, and I know I'm not the only one who stopped watching around that time. We could have similar articles on everyone from Big Daddy to Mil Mascaras to Triple H, it's just a matter of getting editors together to make such an article and getting the sources to do it. Both are harder to do with historic subjects; the exception here was that this was written as the push was occurring, so fan interest was at its peak and sources were fresh and easy to find. I'll note that this article has survived an AfD, merge request and a similar RfC.LM2000 (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page even still up? The fans’ attitudes towards Roman Reigns used to be a hotbed of discussion but this page is just unnecessary now, and it was unnecessary when it was started. There’s no page on the crowd reactions John Cena used to get. Roguemaster83 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. This page is a documentary of a phenomenon that happened over the course of 4+ years, and Roman's reception is still met with mixed reactions to this day. The reason that there's no John Cena page is because nobody wants to dig through old articles and source the information like we've done for Roman, as it's going daily, RIGHT NOW, and it's a cake walk to do so. If you and or other people want to make a page about Cena's persona and reception" then go right ahead, nobody's stopping you ~ Aardwolf68 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are delusional and this page is far from the truth. You only took what you could to force your personal vision of a wrestler worth millions of dollars in views and live events. You must be confused to use a Wikipedia page to do it. Delete it because you are the hater, use your personal blog instead of Wikipedia. 151.18.7.12 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff with "citation needed" tags has been removed.

Removed a bizarre section where the alleged "source" doesn't say what the article claims it does at all.

(I wonder how many of these "sources" don't actually say what the article claims that they say?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.195.36 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're right about other sources being misused in the way you mention. Wrestling article in general often have lots of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There does need to be a better editorial standard. Thanks for the clean up. — Czello 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown has all-time low ratings. Recently AEW's The Bunny drew a higher quarter-hour rating than Reigns. While it's true that some (self-appointed) "critics" have said positive things about "the Tribal Chief", by all measurable methods, "the Head of the Table" has been an unparalleled failure for WWE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.19.33 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved reception and ratings are two different things. Wikipedia operates on reliable sources, and those "self-appointed critics" are determined to be reliable. So when they say Reigns is improved, we say it too. — Czello 08:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling observer newsletter Best Gimmick (2021) https://www.f4wonline.com/newsletters/wrestling-observer-newsletter/february-21-observer-newsletter-2021-awards-issue-cod-and-brandi-rhodes-leave-aew

Sports Illustrated Wrestler of the Year (2021) https://www.si.com/wrestling/2022/01/06/top-10-wrestlers-2021-roman-reigns-kenny-omega-bryan-danielson

Bumpy award Wrestler of the half year https://solowrestling.mundodeportivo.com/new/100392-wwe-presenta-the-bumpy-awadrs-2021 120.17.215.143 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WON and PWI, yes. I wouldn't include the Bumpy. It's an award given by the promotion itself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this should be incorporated

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10048967-roman-reigns-kazuchika-okada-cm-punk-headline-2022-pwi-500-list.amp.html 58.168.116.205 (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]