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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Corre (professional wrestling)[edit]

No sources, unencyclopedic tone and overall not a terribly notable group. It's funny that about 8 months ago, I was firmly on the opposite side of this article's previous discussion for deletion. But the point is the "Corre" section of Wade Barrett's article aptly sums up every notable thing the group did. There's really nothing else to add and trying to do so is just beating a dead horse. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I feel the issues raised by the AfD were aptly handled and I'm satisfied with the result of the article. I therefore would like to withdraw my AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 21:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge (changed vote (see below):Regretful keep) Redirect to Wade Barrett as he is the most notable of the group --Christianandjericho (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were supposed to be equal. Deely1 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• However he formed the group and was the only one to win a singles title --ChristianandJericho (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, he and Ezekiel formed it together and having a title doesn't make you a leader. Deely1 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seeing that this is the entire point of this AfD. You're throwing around source-less conjecture. Show your sources that state Barrett and Jackson formed the group together. Articles on Wikipedia have to have a standard of verifiability and notability. Otherwise you're simply making speculations. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 16:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even watch the show? If you did, then you'd know how the group was formed and wouldn't be asking for references. Deely1 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, once again, you completely miss the point. I do watch the show, but that's irrelevant once again. You have to establish notability in the article. Just because I know how the group formed and what they did doesn't mean that everyone is immediately going to. The point of Wikipedia is to inform and educate about notable topics. If an article's subject cannot show its notability then it does not need to be on Wikipedia.

Another thing, I noticed what you said about listing references and looked at the article. You're also not realizing that you need to provide non-trivial reliable sources. PWTorch and all those wrestling 'insider' websites do not qualify as reliable sources and YouTube videos most definitely do not. All those sources aren't going to hold up in weighing the importance of the article. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then Antoshi how about this. You delete all the references, find them yourself and tell us that the article is now notable enough. Deely1 02:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote for deletion still stands tall --ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, ChristianandJericho? You have yet to explain your reasons for choosing to delete. Also, Antoshi, pwtorch.com is a reliable source. I have also expanded the article to talk more about Gabriel's and Slater's exploits, which the Wade Barrett article doesn't cover. Starship.paint (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I really don't care about the corre article, I actually helped a little on the page, hell

• Keep BUT rename to just The Corre because nothing else is named The Corre (however by vote to delete Air Boom still stands --ChristianandJericho (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't agree. This group won the tag team championships once AND the intercontinental title. Just because you personally don't think they're "notable" doesn't mean they haven't accomplished something big. I do understand they're like The Nexus, but that doesn't change their accomplishments. One thing I DO agree, however, is that this article needs sources and that people need to edit it to sound more professional, but just because of it's tone, it shouldn't be considered to be deleted unless you give it a sufficient time to be edited. Important groups, whether the article sounds encyclopedic or not, need to be recorded. --Srsrox (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I think or don't think is irrelevant; that's the point of this page – there needs to be a consensus. It's been an article for two weeks. An article's lifespan is irrelevant as well. Unless the subject in question has reliable sources right now, it does not need to be on Wikipedia. There does not need to be a "wait period" or a "trial run" for an article, especially when it has NO sources. The group has one two championships in their 6-month run. So? Does that make this this an "important" group, like you say, to warrant its own article? If that's so, where are the sources to accurately confirm that it IS an important group? There aren't, and that's the problem. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources can be found to demonstrate WP:notability (which is not based on one person's subjective opinion). BTW, I removed a "good article" class from the article's talk page. No article may be rated as a good article unless it's been though a GA review and passed - which is not possible with no sources. LadyofShalott 02:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not sure the coverage is mostly about group rather than the individual members (having spot checked some, but by no means all, of the added references), but I'll withdraw my delete vote. LadyofShalott 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The group were together for months, and held three championship belts at once. They had plenty of promos and storylines. Keep it. Deely1 08:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Without references, I could question the very existence of The Corre, let alone notability. Reference it, (heavily), and I will happily reverse my position. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced it. Is that good enough? Or should I reference anything else? Take a look at it, if you are still keen on deleting the article. The article isn't very long so I don't think there isn't any more to be referenced, but if the article was kept, I'd be more than happy to enlarge it. Deely1 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, highly notable stable. Josh (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you guys hold off on deleting this while I find suitable references, I will be working on this. Starship.paint (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed all the referencing, although I might still add some prose. Starship.paint (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still in the processes of editing this article but I believe I have found enough reliable secondary sources to justify this article's notability. I will keep adding references but it is likely that the publishers of the sources will remain the same. The sources are f4wonline.com, slam.canoe.ca, pwtorch.com, wrestleview.com, onlineworldofwrestling.com and cagematch.de. I will add to this list here if I find other sources as well. I think since there is adequate coverage we should Keep the article. I invite anyone who has made a prior decision to reconsider their decision on the basis of new sources. Starship.paint (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated all current prose with proper references to reliable secondary sources. Starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With 27 references, it appears to now easily pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.