Deletion of List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer

Comment: to Dave Meltzer. I don't see the in-depth coverage in independent RS needed to meet . But to some extent that is secondary. The Dave Meltzer page is relatively brief and a merge in of this page would make a nice, full size article. Indeed, even if this page was kept I would support a merge on encyclopaedia building grounds. Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0|2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There's a lot of commentary here that isn't based on WP policy. It doesn't matter that these are just his opinions (so is every award for something subjective - like the Oscars). It doesn't matter that he's arbitrary (so, again, are the Oscars). It doesn't matter whether this list |is/is not useful or |interesting. What matters is , , and . That's all that matters really in this particular AFD. Based on these sources (https://www.inquisitr.com/5607224/wwe-news-pete-dunne-criticizes-this-years-pwi-500-list-and-dave-meltzers-star-rating-system/ 1 https://www.si.com/wrestling/2018/08/15/dave-meltzer-observer-star-ratings-wwe-njpw 2 http://whatculture.com/wwe/10-wrestling-observer-newsletter-star-ratings-dave-meltzer-got-wrong 3) I can see that they probably are since Meltzer's ratings for matches are discussed as a group in what appear to be reliable (at least passes for ), independent sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:INTERESTING||WP:NLIST||WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:NEWSORG)

Comment: This is none other than pure . Somebody's personal opinions are not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: not that I particularly care about his reviews, but this is no different from other such lists such as something like List of films considered the best. This is a well-defined list regarding a Reliable source. If there were more wrestling journalists that had a reputation, it could be expanded. Regardless of what he has said (it would actually make sense to have a "detractors" section, the subject is notable by  Best Wishes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I'm usually tempted to say 'this is one guy's opinion '...but reading through the sourcing and that this man is acclaimed in his field as a news-breaker and writer, I'm inclined in this case to keep. We have articles for college sports like the Helms Athletic Foundation, Houlgate System, and Dickinson System where one person or group declared champions and it's been respected by scholars as for the most part a good decision, and this is equivalent to that. There's a fair case here made to keep this article, and I'm going to agree on this one; this isn't grading every single match since 1984, just a number of prime matches, as it should be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WHOCARES)