"

Cruft in trivia section
A backstage segment featuring dancing is certainly fancruft that doesn't belong. It being a reunion of sorts (and it being at WM) doesn't make it any more notable at all. The dance segment didn't affect any of the matches and certainly doesn't help the article.  
I suggest moving to the notes section.   3:16 
It's always been in the notes section, that's not the problem here. The problem is: it's a backstage segment. Backstage segments aren't notable, and don't affect the matches or anything... why add this one over others? Just because it was a reunion isn't a good enough reason in my opinion. People certainly could argue the Boogey Man/Trump segment was notable, as it featured the first time the 2 had interaction (or just on the fact Trump appeared). It's fancruft and serves no purpose except that some people might think it's ""interesting"". That's not enough to keep it on the article.  
Oh I didn't see that. Hmmm... let me see what I can do with it...   3:16 

I think that we should just add them to the other talent section if they aren't there already and not mention the dance. It was pretty pointless, and doesn't seem necessary. Peace,  The rid 
While I agree that the Boogeyman segment wasn't notable, this segment had the return of Slick (first time in like 15 years) and a bunch of other WWE legends. It being a reunion and at WM does help its case IMO (especially the reunion part). You are saying being a backstage segment is the problem, so you wouldn't be objecting if they had done this on the stage or in the ring? If we mentioned them in the on screen talent section, what would we put down for them so someone else doesn't remove it. It also got covered in most reviews and coverage of the event (coevering the notability part). Being cruft is an opinion; being a reunion featuring over a dozen legends and covered by almost every review makes it worth at least mentioning.  

Eh, the return of Slick is pretty important. I'll change my vote to Weak Support, as I had forgotten about that point. Peace,  The rid 
Covered in almost every review? I find that very hard to believe. Provide some proof. Also: so what if it's covered? The matches are reviewed in the reviews as well: that doesn't mean we will start listing highlights for each match. I also recall there being a guideline on Wikipedia about it not being a democracy: meaning not everything should be determined by a vote. I somehow think if this fancruft was gone: no one would be re-adding except for TJ. From the edit history: it seems like he was the only one re-adding it back. That certainly shows that people don't care about it. A few talk page posts in favor of it: isn't much consensus to keep it on the article.  
 and  among others. Other people have added it back, I just get to it first usually.  
Considering OWW is a fansite, only the Slam link is reliable. Anyone can write a review and mention it: fansites aren't a reliable source. I've seen no edit history of anyone else re-adding it back, so I'm still going to believe no one else has (until I see otherwise). If I need to bring an admin into this, I will. Because in my opinion: it's a content dispute between me and TJ, as no one else seems to care much about ONE LITTLE crufty thing. Slick returned for ONE appearance, post it on the Slick article and leave it at that.  
I could find more if I tried, that was in a quick 1 minute search. I could flip it and say only you think it should be removed. I don't see the big deal. It's not cruft, it's notable (based on what counts as being notable), an