Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Attitude Era

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 Merge and redirect. This article is actually a summary of other articles, joined together by unsourced speculation and personal opinion. There may be salvageable bits, however; and, as a search term, the title is probably common. This merge should not be reverted without a heavy rewrite of the underlying content. Xoloz (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Attitude Era[edit]

Redundant information from History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Everything else is original research. I don't suggest merging, since there is no sourced information to merge. Best bet is to delete and redirect. Nikki311 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it can be developed into a sizable fork article - the "History of WWE" is jam-packed anyway, so a fork is do-able. This is also an "era," constituting of many significant developments. Shiva_eVolved 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the nomination: I could be wrong, but aren't redirects supposed to happen instead of deletes, rather than in addition to them? -FrankTobia (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, not always. The page is deleted first so the redirect is not undone, and then the page is turned into a redirect. The page is not supposed to be deleted when information is merged, but if no information is transferred, it is okay to delete. Also, as per precedent, a lot of the wrestling fans on Wikipedia (not the members of WP:PW who know better) continuously recreate pages despite the consensus to delete, merge, or redirect leading to the salting and protection of many, many wrestling pages. Deletion first makes it that much harder to recreate, especially when the little bit of salvageable information is located elsewhere and everything else is original research or a crufty timeline. Nikki311 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duly noted, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply :-) -FrankTobia (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of World Wrestling Entertainment#The Attitude era and The Montreal Screwjob section, which could use some wikilove. Incidentally, History of WWE only has 3 citations, so I don't see how "unsourced" is a good reason not to merge. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with recommendation by nominator. This article is likely unsalvageable. Risker (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per NickPenguin --Shark face 217 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge which back to parent after removing unsourced information -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; although if so it needs to be heavily cleaned up and rewritten. Before I noticed it was a candidate for deletion it struck me as obvious that it's very poorly written in many places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.197.231 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — 90.192.197.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete This is Wikipedia and articles like The Attitude Era should be deleted! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much to save here.--Aldux (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Dav nel 03 16:06, 20 December 2007 (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.