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 no consensus, after extended time for discussion, with the recent trend of participation being more towards keeping. BD2412T 00:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Largely a duplication of material from History_of_WWE#The_Reality_Era_(2013–2016). There seems to be a few extra sentences towards the end, but not enough to justify its own article. No establishment of notability in a way that isn't already covered in History of WWE — Czello 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its at raw stage, people are welcomed to change it and add more content and make it Wikipedia standard, as with the Attitude Era, which is also part of History of WWE article. But I am neither supporting/opposing deletion, staying neutral due to some time frame dispute on WP:PW. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay, and not even an essay disguised as an article, but an essay in article space. It doesn't help that I disagree with many of the opinions expressed within. Makes me want to correct it, rather than comprehend it, or assume terrible things about the sort of people who'd nod along with the author(s). Easier to eventually uneditorialize if it's only in one place. Going to need more commas and italics, too, if left doubled. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Too short of a era in WWE to have its own article. It should remain in the History of WWE article. The New Era, Ruthless Aggression era, and the PG era could potentially merit their own articles, however. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be willing to improve this article tremendously if given some time.68.196.72.173 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You've got ~140 hours left :) (Redacted) 12:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment I will come back here and note when I am finished — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions only, not nearly the significance of the Attitude Era or the Rock 'n' Wrestling period. Seriously, we don't need to give everything an article just because some WWE marketing blurb used a term! oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still working on the article, but in the event it decides to be deleted, PLEASE at the very least let's move some of my information into the Reality Era section of 'History of WWE' page. Thank you.68.196.72.173 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mentioned in many reliable sources, including an analysis of the era in Baltimore Sun: [1], a mention on ESPN: [2], a mention on NBC: [3], an in-depth discussion in the Denver Post: [4], and an in-depth discussion on the era in a book from Indiana University Press: [5]. While some of the information may be repeated in the History of WWE article, these sources certainly show potential for expansion. Per WP:NOTIMELIMIT, deleting the article would not be appropriate, as the article should not be judged just on current state, but on future potential. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, editors stating their reasons as the era was too short or not as important as other eras are citing personal opinions, which hold no weight against WP:GNG, which is clearly met with the sources mentioned here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have finished my editing and improvement of this page for now. If anyone wants to clean it up to look a little better, by all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After taking GaryColemanFan's points into accounts, considering how popular Daniel Bryan was back in 2014, how his WM 30 victory was reported in famous news papers all over the world, how WM 32 crossed 100,000 + attendance figure the highest in WWE history, I am voting keep, although I will be fine with whatever the majority decides, if it gets deleted I have no problem, but considering articles like Persona and reception of Roman Reigns are allowed (which appears to be nothing but a hate fiction and should be merged with the actual wrestler), I don't see how this article is more offensive than WP:NPOV and WP:OR breaking articles like those, that have been kept. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a very much talked about and referenced era with quite a few notable things taking place including the rise Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns, both of which were covered by big news outlets at the time, especially Bryan. 68.196.72.173 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czello. A duplication of the History of WWE. Also, it's a time period too short. 33 sources, but just 5 of them mentions the Reality Era and the 5 sources are unreliable. The era exist, but there is not enough coverage for an independent article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added three of the sources I mentioned above (Denver Post, Baltimore Sun, and the book from Indiana University Press). I feel that the discussions in these sources could help develop this article, so I hope that placing them in the article itself will help this page reach its potential. I also believe that the article now meets GNG, not only in potential but in execution, as these sources discuss the era in enough detail to meet notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's time to wrap this up. Most of the concerns have been addressed, as multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources have been added since the delete votes were cast. Other concerns (e.g. the minimum length of time to be considered an "era") are not tied to notability. Can an administrator please take a look at this and do more than a simple vote count? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of whether the provided sources constitute substantive coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still see many problems with the article. As I said on the Wikiproject talk page, the Reality Era hasn't enough coverage. Some articles say the Reañity Era exist, but it's too soon for a coverage like Attitude or Ruthless Eras. The article just focuses on the storylines (Daniel Bryan and The Shield), but not about WWE as company. The "notable events" are WP:OR. There is any source about Taker vs Wyatt as a notable event for the Reality Era? There are sources, for example, the Hardys/E&C/Dudleys as a notable part of the Attitude Era. Also, my major problem is the "end". The Reality Era ended jsut because WWE said so, failing into WP:PUBLICITY. We are just repeating what WWE said, but I don't see many sources following the "Reality Era ended in 2016", just a few exceptions following what WWE said. My point, there are not enought coverage of the Reality Era (the era, not the events during the era) for a independent article since the era hasn't been covered yet. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Notability still hasn't been established. None of the sources detail why the Reality Era was notable in its own right, or what part it played in pro wrestling history. The article seems to simply be a history lesson. — Czello 12:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not established in the Wikipedia article, or not established in the sources provided? There's a huge difference. The Wikipedia article definitely needs work, but that's not part of the criteria for WP:N. The sources provided discuss the era in detail, which is what matters for this discussion. Your comments are all focused on specific statements in the Wikipedia article, which shows a lack of understanding of AfDs altogether. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do detail the era itself, but I can't see which ones establish why it's notable to the point of it having its own article. — Czello 16:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out about notability, who are Wikipedia editors to decide notability?WP:OR isn't allowed, if WP:RS considers it notable, than it is. There are plenty of WP:RS which notes the significance of what happened during this particular period. The article has also been improved from its old status. And this article is far significant following WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR guidelines than the hate fiction in the name of an article that is Persona and reception of Roman Reigns. The existence of which has been questioned numerous times, and here is how it survived deletion and the grounds for keeping it:
Delete
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)
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)
Unlike that article The Reality Era is a well sourced material that has notability within the scopes of WP:Rs. Deleting it just because a bunch editors feel like its not notable is a pure WP:NOR violation. And a few of those voted delete only saw the premature version, the article is far more improved now complying with Wikipedia guidelines and well structured. The rest of my point why it should be kept is already highlighted in my previous keep comment. Thats all I have to say. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out which sources you believe establish notability to the point of this being its own article? No one here is arbitrarily deciding it doesn't have notability, we're saying the sources don't establish why it's important. — Czello 07:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[6] just to name one of many non primary sources listing its significance. not to mention Cena dominated WWE from 2005-2013, fans had been voicing the displeasure and with the rise of Daniel Bryan fans technically triggered the era leading to WM 30, WM 32 disputed 100,000 attendance the highest in WWE and any North American wrestling history and so on. Regardless this article is far more relevant, neutral, well sourced and wikipedia standard than the Reigns hate fiction article which I mentioned above, but has been kept regardless. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be largely repeating Daniel Bryan's own opinion on the Reality Era. It doesn't seem to be establishing the era's significance in a way that doesn't come from WWE's own voice. — Czello 12:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated repeatedly, the Denver Post and Baltimore Sun articles, along with the book from Indiana University Press establish notability. Notability is established according to WP:GNG. If, as you said, the multiple reliable secondary sources "detail the era itself," notability is established. When notability is established, a separate article is warranted. Please, please read WP:GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world would we need more sources about the "End" of the era when WWE themselves, a source that should trump anything else, stated it themselves in May 2016?
because thats WP:publicity, just repeat what wwe says. WWE wants to promote a huge change and a new era, it doesnt mean a new era is real. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-HHH Pedrigree I see some biasedness against WWE from you, please remember WP:NPOV, just naming certain periods into specific era isn't a publicity violation. Also last time WWE named a new era was in 2016, a long time passed (attitude era only lasted 4 years, new era has already surpassed that length). WWE behaves differently, like in the Reality Era it revolved around Daniel Bryan the New Era is about the new brand extension and the women's evolution. The reality era in 2014 is not something WWE wanted to enter they never wanted to push Daniel Bryan but fans forced them to it so that further erases the publicity issue, as it was an era WWE only entered because they were forced to. Also remember WP:NOR it is not for editors to decide, not just wwe but secondary sources WP:RS also names those eras and these sources have been listed on the articles. Various non WWE sources cites those eras, so they are notable. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
im not against WWE, but against a WWE centric-pedia and Wikipedia as WWE speaker. WWE wanted to promote a "new era", but not many secondary sources agree with this. Also, several points are similar with the RE (bryan, Lesnar, Rollins, Ambrose and Reigns) and the most important point, the blur between fiction and reality. Again, WP:publicity. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your views, but I disagree with publicity like I said the reality era was something WWE never wanted but the fans, the yes movement forced them to accept the rise of Bryan in 2014, Austin, HHH, Rock debuted on new generation era, but they became big stars in Attitude Era, it never says that wrestlers cannot be in more than one era. Also there are plenty of sufficient non WWE RS that supports the reality era, as anyone who checks the article can see, and there are a lot more that are there but need not be included as there are already sufficient of them. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the Reality Era doesn't exist. Several Sources agree that the Reality Era exist. But is different from WWE saying "The reality Era ends in 2016 just because we want". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HHH Pedrigree WWE started to operate in a different way in 2016, Daniel Bryan was no longer the top huy which he was in Realty Era, WWE brought back the brand extension long after 2002 (last time it was the 2002 brand extension that started the Ruthless Aggression Era), and most of all since 2016 the women's evolution, rise of Becky and Charlotte is going on. In Reality Era women were still called divas, now its the womens division. Womens matches have more spotlight and are main events. There are also many non WWE sources that states 2016 as the start of the "New" Era, and since then it is ongoing, it is already longer than the 3 years 1993-1997's "New Generation Era". There are many non WWE RS like this, that clearly says new era begun in 2016: [7]. Anyway the main topic is not when the Reality era ended, but whether the article stays or gets deleted. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HHHPedigree, because WWE wants to promote and change to a new era that doesn't mean it's real? So what constitutes as real for a new WWE era? A dirt sheet site reporting on it? Lol. Am I missing something here? Or do you just hate WWE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.110 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When the article was submitted for deletion it was in a very bad state, now it seems to have improved a lot and is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.8.130 (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to keep - I've changed my mind a few weeks later. Good thing this is still open. This article is much better sourced and I am now convinced at this subject being important enpugh to warrant its article, GNG has been satisfied in my eyes. I see this AfD as an important precedent to creating more articles specifically about WWE eras, and possibly other promotions should they arise. Major kudos to those who worked on this article and convinced me at it being important wnough to wrestling for its own article. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2020 (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.