- 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 delete‎. Consensus is clear that it's lacking in sufficient independent sourcing to establish notability. Star Mississippi 16:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cena–Orton rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The content is a merge of some parts of both men's wrestling storylines. There is no official ending or beginning, so the the "aftermath" does not make sense and it is not coherent. Most of recognition are primary sources (WWE promotion), unremarkable web writers and fans. The rivalry have no proper recognition from reliable sources and not even the usual well-established awards like WON, PWI etc. BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons I laid out at the first nomination. In short, no indication of notability and largely just a plot summary. Incidentally at the last discussion I suggested how the article could be redeemed, but no action has been taken since. — Czello ( music) 20:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or merge - I would endorse this comment by TTN from the last round in 2022:
- Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense.
- That would be a useful article. The current detailed article is in-universe and unencyclopedic.
Llajwa (
talk)
15:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is for constructively, if readers have no objection whats the point of deleting, we can just improve the areas but the article is Ok, its not entirely in universe it explains a little details of the feud like any wrestling article but elaborates the decade long backstage news, reception and other encyclopedic contents. Also I might add talk joining just last month and already nominating many established articles for deletion is kinda suspicious, just look at his contribution history. Dilbaggg ( talk) 05:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Well sourced and covers a significant long term rivalry in WWE history that ran for a decade and as per numerous
WP:RS acknowledged as one of the most
WP:Notable mand popular rivalry ever, not a supporter of other stuff exist argument but I don't get how clean
Persona and reception of Roman Reigns don't and Cena-Orton rivalry is wrestling's
Federer–Nadal rivalry and is a clean article supported by
Wp:RS,
Wp:Notable and almost all Wikipedia guidelines. WWE, Pinkvilla, 411Mania and many sources called it one of the greatest rivalry ever, who cares about kayfabe PWI there are way better sources, there are numerous
WP:RS that supports this rivalry's popularity.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
03:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- The sources largely talk about matches and storylines but fail to actually establish notability. WWE as a source isn't valid as it's a primary source and largely a marketing piece. I'm glad you mentioned the Federer-Nadal article as last time we had this discussion I pointed out that was a model for how this article should be, but isn't. That is an actual rivalry with sources that show how it's notable, while this is a storyline whose sources are just recaps. — Czello ( music) 15:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)- Then you can improve it rather than outright deleting a good article, note you are the old nominator so your opinion may be slightly biased, and beside WWE themselves there are many non primary
WP:RS that acknowledges this as a
WP:Notable feud, and just like any
WP:PW article like say
Triple H it contains elements of scripted competition which is already explained in the article, thats the same with any pro wrestling article and match description like say
WrestleMania 39 for e.g., its properly explained there how it is. Also the3 nominator this time is hihghly suspicious, he joined just in December and already nominated so many articles for deletion. Instead of improving a good article you want to ruin it and no wonder the
WP:PW community had the
WP:GS against them, youn have 0 respect for wrestling and don't want good articles like in football, tennis, etc, you just want to delete stuff based on personal views. Anyway this has [{WP:RS]], meets
WP:Notab;le I will accept whatever decision consensus reaches like last time. Anyway no hard feelings, imo this is a good article and rather than lazily deleting it it is better to improve it.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
09:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are casting aspersions by questioning OP based in that manner – not to mention doing the same to me in the same comment. Me being the previous nominator is irrelevant; I made clear who I am above by reiterating my original concerns and stating nothing has been done to improve the quality of the article since then. You were warned about personal attacks in the last discussion, also. WP:AGF.
- You seem to be working backwards in saying that it's notable and instead of deleting we should find sources to prove it – yet in the 18 months since the last AFD, none have been found. There's ultimately only one source in the article that is useful, and all that does is say it was "arguably" one of the best feuds. Great – but that doesn't establish notability. — Czello ( music) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
-
Czello there are many other sources that supports its notability and acknowledges this feud, some in the article and some outside, you are solely talking about the reception one, like I said you can improve it but no all you care is deleting and its not PA to express suspicion about the OP, tho I do apologies that I brought out you were the old nominator.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
09:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources in the article do you feel establish notability? And yes, casting aspersions is considered a personal attack, see WP:ASPERSIONS. — Czello ( music) 09:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Then you can improve it rather than outright deleting a good article, note you are the old nominator so your opinion may be slightly biased, and beside WWE themselves there are many non primary
WP:RS that acknowledges this as a
WP:Notable feud, and just like any
WP:PW article like say
Triple H it contains elements of scripted competition which is already explained in the article, thats the same with any pro wrestling article and match description like say
WrestleMania 39 for e.g., its properly explained there how it is. Also the3 nominator this time is hihghly suspicious, he joined just in December and already nominated so many articles for deletion. Instead of improving a good article you want to ruin it and no wonder the
WP:PW community had the
WP:GS against them, youn have 0 respect for wrestling and don't want good articles like in football, tennis, etc, you just want to delete stuff based on personal views. Anyway this has [{WP:RS]], meets
WP:Notab;le I will accept whatever decision consensus reaches like last time. Anyway no hard feelings, imo this is a good article and rather than lazily deleting it it is better to improve it.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
09:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as mentioned before, the article is just a summarize of a TV Plot. Besides the RAW, PPVs results, there is no analysis about the feud. No sources point why the "rivalry" is notable. Only two sources used for legacy, one of them a WWE.com article from the company itself. --
HHH Pedrigree (
talk)
13:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The article is not even near to Nadal-Fereder rivalry. First, it was a real rivalry, this is just a TV scripted plot. If we talk about pro wrestling rivalries, try with Russo - Cornette or Flair - Douglas, people who have real life rivalry. Second, there is no analysis besides the TV Plot. The Reigns article includes real life analysis about his character and persona. That's the probelm with the article and many other, it's to focused on the TV characters, but the focus should be the real life performers. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is not established by sources provided, which are mostly just reports/results from shows as they happened. LM2000 ( talk) 14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b016:327c:dcd5:bb77:f606:9f08 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep: This is a good article, and a significant decade long rivalry as a Wikipedia reader and Wrestling fan I wish this article stays and has the potential for improvement.
81.21.4.10 (
talk)
13:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- How is it good, exactly? This doesn't address the concerns around notability. It was given the chance for improvement since the last AFD, but no action was taken. — Czello ( music) 13:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Two Ips with no contributions and no arguments... -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Idk one of them said he/she is a reader, but nice to see both want keep, btw
Czello primary sources liek WWE can be used sometimes, they may be forbidden in some areas but when necessary there are guidlines to include some primary sources and now that WWE is owned by TKO its less likely to be a primary source, and its use was Ok, you should have kept in intact while the nomination was on going and let neutral party judge, I ain't editing the article atm due to the nomination tho but if it survives I might add even better sources, searching about this rivalry yields many great
WP:RS talking about its notability.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
04:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also take a look at these for instance, all these highlights its notability.
[1]
Dilbaggg (
talk)
04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is 100% a primary source - I'm not sure why you think being owned by TKO would change that.
- Primary sources can be used in some instances, but not to establish notability as it's effectively a marketing piece.
- I'd suggest that if you want to add sources to improve it you do so now - editing isn’t prohibited during an AfD (and it's encouraged if it can prove notability) and given that it likely won't survive this will be your last opportunity — Czello ( music) 06:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also take a look at these for instance, all these highlights its notability.
[1]
Dilbaggg (
talk)
04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete‎. Consensus is clear that it's lacking in sufficient independent sourcing to establish notability. Star Mississippi 16:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cena–Orton rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The content is a merge of some parts of both men's wrestling storylines. There is no official ending or beginning, so the the "aftermath" does not make sense and it is not coherent. Most of recognition are primary sources (WWE promotion), unremarkable web writers and fans. The rivalry have no proper recognition from reliable sources and not even the usual well-established awards like WON, PWI etc. BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons I laid out at the first nomination. In short, no indication of notability and largely just a plot summary. Incidentally at the last discussion I suggested how the article could be redeemed, but no action has been taken since. — Czello ( music) 20:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or merge - I would endorse this comment by TTN from the last round in 2022:
- Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense.
- That would be a useful article. The current detailed article is in-universe and unencyclopedic.
Llajwa (
talk)
15:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is for constructively, if readers have no objection whats the point of deleting, we can just improve the areas but the article is Ok, its not entirely in universe it explains a little details of the feud like any wrestling article but elaborates the decade long backstage news, reception and other encyclopedic contents. Also I might add talk joining just last month and already nominating many established articles for deletion is kinda suspicious, just look at his contribution history. Dilbaggg ( talk) 05:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Well sourced and covers a significant long term rivalry in WWE history that ran for a decade and as per numerous
WP:RS acknowledged as one of the most
WP:Notable mand popular rivalry ever, not a supporter of other stuff exist argument but I don't get how clean
Persona and reception of Roman Reigns don't and Cena-Orton rivalry is wrestling's
Federer–Nadal rivalry and is a clean article supported by
Wp:RS,
Wp:Notable and almost all Wikipedia guidelines. WWE, Pinkvilla, 411Mania and many sources called it one of the greatest rivalry ever, who cares about kayfabe PWI there are way better sources, there are numerous
WP:RS that supports this rivalry's popularity.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
03:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- The sources largely talk about matches and storylines but fail to actually establish notability. WWE as a source isn't valid as it's a primary source and largely a marketing piece. I'm glad you mentioned the Federer-Nadal article as last time we had this discussion I pointed out that was a model for how this article should be, but isn't. That is an actual rivalry with sources that show how it's notable, while this is a storyline whose sources are just recaps. — Czello ( music) 15:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)- Then you can improve it rather than outright deleting a good article, note you are the old nominator so your opinion may be slightly biased, and beside WWE themselves there are many non primary
WP:RS that acknowledges this as a
WP:Notable feud, and just like any
WP:PW article like say
Triple H it contains elements of scripted competition which is already explained in the article, thats the same with any pro wrestling article and match description like say
WrestleMania 39 for e.g., its properly explained there how it is. Also the3 nominator this time is hihghly suspicious, he joined just in December and already nominated so many articles for deletion. Instead of improving a good article you want to ruin it and no wonder the
WP:PW community had the
WP:GS against them, youn have 0 respect for wrestling and don't want good articles like in football, tennis, etc, you just want to delete stuff based on personal views. Anyway this has [{WP:RS]], meets
WP:Notab;le I will accept whatever decision consensus reaches like last time. Anyway no hard feelings, imo this is a good article and rather than lazily deleting it it is better to improve it.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
09:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are casting aspersions by questioning OP based in that manner – not to mention doing the same to me in the same comment. Me being the previous nominator is irrelevant; I made clear who I am above by reiterating my original concerns and stating nothing has been done to improve the quality of the article since then. You were warned about personal attacks in the last discussion, also. WP:AGF.
- You seem to be working backwards in saying that it's notable and instead of deleting we should find sources to prove it – yet in the 18 months since the last AFD, none have been found. There's ultimately only one source in the article that is useful, and all that does is say it was "arguably" one of the best feuds. Great – but that doesn't establish notability. — Czello ( music) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
-
Czello there are many other sources that supports its notability and acknowledges this feud, some in the article and some outside, you are solely talking about the reception one, like I said you can improve it but no all you care is deleting and its not PA to express suspicion about the OP, tho I do apologies that I brought out you were the old nominator.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
09:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources in the article do you feel establish notability? And yes, casting aspersions is considered a personal attack, see WP:ASPERSIONS. — Czello ( music) 09:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Then you can improve it rather than outright deleting a good article, note you are the old nominator so your opinion may be slightly biased, and beside WWE themselves there are many non primary
WP:RS that acknowledges this as a
WP:Notable feud, and just like any
WP:PW article like say
Triple H it contains elements of scripted competition which is already explained in the article, thats the same with any pro wrestling article and match description like say
WrestleMania 39 for e.g., its properly explained there how it is. Also the3 nominator this time is hihghly suspicious, he joined just in December and already nominated so many articles for deletion. Instead of improving a good article you want to ruin it and no wonder the
WP:PW community had the
WP:GS against them, youn have 0 respect for wrestling and don't want good articles like in football, tennis, etc, you just want to delete stuff based on personal views. Anyway this has [{WP:RS]], meets
WP:Notab;le I will accept whatever decision consensus reaches like last time. Anyway no hard feelings, imo this is a good article and rather than lazily deleting it it is better to improve it.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
09:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as mentioned before, the article is just a summarize of a TV Plot. Besides the RAW, PPVs results, there is no analysis about the feud. No sources point why the "rivalry" is notable. Only two sources used for legacy, one of them a WWE.com article from the company itself. --
HHH Pedrigree (
talk)
13:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The article is not even near to Nadal-Fereder rivalry. First, it was a real rivalry, this is just a TV scripted plot. If we talk about pro wrestling rivalries, try with Russo - Cornette or Flair - Douglas, people who have real life rivalry. Second, there is no analysis besides the TV Plot. The Reigns article includes real life analysis about his character and persona. That's the probelm with the article and many other, it's to focused on the TV characters, but the focus should be the real life performers. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is not established by sources provided, which are mostly just reports/results from shows as they happened. LM2000 ( talk) 14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b016:327c:dcd5:bb77:f606:9f08 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep: This is a good article, and a significant decade long rivalry as a Wikipedia reader and Wrestling fan I wish this article stays and has the potential for improvement.
81.21.4.10 (
talk)
13:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- How is it good, exactly? This doesn't address the concerns around notability. It was given the chance for improvement since the last AFD, but no action was taken. — Czello ( music) 13:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Two Ips with no contributions and no arguments... -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Idk one of them said he/she is a reader, but nice to see both want keep, btw
Czello primary sources liek WWE can be used sometimes, they may be forbidden in some areas but when necessary there are guidlines to include some primary sources and now that WWE is owned by TKO its less likely to be a primary source, and its use was Ok, you should have kept in intact while the nomination was on going and let neutral party judge, I ain't editing the article atm due to the nomination tho but if it survives I might add even better sources, searching about this rivalry yields many great
WP:RS talking about its notability.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
04:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also take a look at these for instance, all these highlights its notability.
[1]
Dilbaggg (
talk)
04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is 100% a primary source - I'm not sure why you think being owned by TKO would change that.
- Primary sources can be used in some instances, but not to establish notability as it's effectively a marketing piece.
- I'd suggest that if you want to add sources to improve it you do so now - editing isn’t prohibited during an AfD (and it's encouraged if it can prove notability) and given that it likely won't survive this will be your last opportunity — Czello ( music) 06:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also take a look at these for instance, all these highlights its notability.
[1]
Dilbaggg (
talk)
04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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.