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. No clear consensus exists, and the article has been updated during the period of this discussion. Two relists later and nothing has really been settled. No prejudice towards a re-nomination in the near future. Daniel ( talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

PG Era

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete this is WP:CRUFT, it fails WP: Notability, it is not a notable period in Wrestling unlike Attitude Era, no Wp:RS exists to make it notable enough, the article is also poorly written, poorly structured, failing Wikipedia on every grounds. No major occurrence like the Monday night wars in the attitude era or the yes movement in the reality era or the women's evolution in the new era which made those phases eligible for their own article. The PG era was initially a fan given name after the transition to PG in 2008, the WWE Brand Extension existed in 2002-2011, no WP:RS distinguishes the Ruthless Aggression era and the early PG Era (2008-2011). Not all eras are notable like the 80s Pro Wrestling Boom, Attitude Era, Reality Era and New Era to have their own articles. This article doesn't even have a source let alone WP:RS and fails WP:V on every ground. So I feel it should be deleted, as everything written would be just from a fan POV and WP:OR with zero notablity as per WP:RS guidelines. Dilbaggg ( talk) 07:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. Not every four year period of a company needs a separate article. ItsKesha ( talk) 18:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — LM2000 ( talk) 18:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete People tossed this phrase around a lot online during the peak years of John Cena's run but it was never a clearly defined era. Wrestling had been PG before this and most WWE programming is still PG today. WWE never really called it this and this article stinks of WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 18:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I guess I'm somewhat wrong, WWE used did refer to the "PG Era" in a poll once. I'm not satisfied we've met WP:SIGCOV requirements from reliable sources though. LM2000 ( talk) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • After some thought, I do think that the transition to TV-PG between the Benoit murders-suicide and Linda McMahon's senate runs did garner enough attention for an article. I don't like it framed in the context of an "era" akin to the Attitude Era or New Generation (where's the New Generation article btw?) because I don't think it was ever purported to be that. But the move toward kid-friendly programming after years of raunchiness, and amid scandals and declining ratings has been thoroughly covered by WP:RS. LM2000 ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • • Remember that eras aren't just a promotional tool by the company. Quite often eras are defined later by reliable sources (historians, journalism). -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • It's all well and good saying "keep", but where's the substantial coverage? It can be covered in the History of WWE article (which clearly needs major improvement), but it's not a defined era and the coverage simply isn't there for its own article. ItsKesha ( talk) 15:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • WP:BADGER. You're being obnoxious. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Clearly no attempt at WP:BEFORE. 161,000 Google results for these terms. More than enough reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Arguments like "it only lasted a few years" show a complete misunderstanding of WP:GNG. A quick search shows that WWE has defined the era [1]. Whether or not the term was used consistently at the time is irrelevant. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per above. This era of WWE seems pretty defined with a simple Google search. There are still examples of how this talked about today and how it affected the programming. Jay Jay ^{What did I do?} 07:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Again not as notable asd the attitude era, fails Wp:Notability on every ground and is extremely poorly written, wrestling and eras have existed since before the formation of NAW in 1948, we can't and nor do we need to write separate individual era articles for each and every era! Dilbaggg ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure what you're arguing. Of course we could have articles about every era. If they are discussed in reliable secondary sources, they meet GNG. There is no requirement for something to be "as notable" as another article. GNG is all that matters. A quick look at Google search results (which you should have done before starting an AfD) shows that there are sufficient sources to meet the notability guidelines. The quality of the writing is also completely separate from any notability criteria. Please actually read the criteria before responding or nominating other articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Dilbaggg, I agreed with many of the points you made in the opening of this AfD, but Gary is right in the response to your last post and you should read arguments to avoid during AfD. You also didn't set up the AfD correctly, I had to finish it for you, so you should think twice before putting up something else for deletion. LM2000 ( talk) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Hi Gary, I too have done a Google search and yet can't find any significant coverage of the subject. Remember, trivial mentions do not suffice. I'm five pages into Google and I've found two articles, both of which think the "PG Era" is an ongoing thing, both from the same source. So not only does the article not pass GNG, the article in and of itself is massively wrong. ItsKesha ( talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Here are five sources to demonstrate notability: [2] gives an explanation of what the PG Era is and how it came to be. [3] gives comments from Vince McMahon, Steve Austin, and John Cena on the difference between the eras. [4] discusses factors leading to the PG Era. [5] discusses the financial impacts of the switch to the PG Era. [6] (search within for "PG-era") discusses the difficulties of trying to be "diverse and inclusive" while remaining PG. Remember that searches to demonstrate notability need to go beyond a standard Google search. Search Books, Newspapers, Scholar, etc. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I've done as you advised Gaz, and searched within all five of your given sources for "PG-Era", so here goes. Source one has no mentions. Source two, none of the three people you mention is even quoted as saying "PG Era", and overall is not even close to significant coverage. Your third source is, being generous, two pages in a book, written in part by a man who says Roman Reigns had a "good cancer". Source four is a paragraph in a 193 page book. Source five is one who's description says the "Reality Era" began in 2011. ItsKesha ( talk) 19:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • (1) No mentions other than an entire paragraph about TV-PG and the PG Era. (2) They don't have to say PG Era. They refer to the era. (3) Two pages. Your distraction tactics are a meaningless attempt to change the topic. (4) A paragraph. Doesn't matter how long the book is. (5) Irrelevant when they say the Reality Era began. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
            • October 15, 2015 Windsor Star: Victoria (Lisa Marie Varon) discusses why she likes the switch to the PG Era. March 29, 2012 Miami Herald: Portrays upcoming match between The Rock and John Cena as a clash between the Attitude and PG Eras. April 1, 2015 Chicago Tribune: Independent wrestler explains the connection between Chris Benoit murder/suicide and transition to PG Era. There's clearly more than enough to establish notability. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
              • Thanks for the follow-up Gaz. Think you accidentally missed the links, but luckily I was able to find two of the three. Here's the article with Varon - one sentence? Has the rest of the article been deleted? Must be an error. Can you tell me the name of the author for the second piece, or the title of the article, or maybe put some quotes here? Thanks in advance Gaz. Finally though, here's the pièce de résistance of your articles - the independent wrestler explaining the connection - Moxie Mollie is her name, you left it off by accident. Here's the entire quote:

                Q: Have you ever seen "The Wrestler"? Mickey Rourke was nominated for an Academy Award for his role in that film?
                A: "Yes. That movie is very accurate as far as how professional wrestling was in the late '70s, the '80s and '90s. That was known as the 'Attitude Era.' It was like the Wild West. People were cussing, there was nudity. Back then, people were on steroids and painkillers. They were wrestling high even when on television. Chris Benoit, a famous wrestler, went crazy and murdered himself and his family. Since then, they have instated a wellness policy. Today, you can't be on steroids. You can't even have had a drink within 16 hours of a match. This is a much healthier, drug-free and family-friendly 'PG' era of professional wrestling."

                There's clearly actually very significant coverage as you are aptly demonstrating! ItsKesha ( talk) 12:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Neutral comment Shouldn't this be titled TV-PG Era if kept? The Motion Picture Association holds a registered trademark on the "PG" rating initialism alone, and WWE programs are rated under the TV Parental Guidelines, not the MPA system. Nate • ( chatter) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME be a factor here? I'm still not convinced this was officially a thing in the first place, but it was something people talked about and they never called it the "TV-PG era", even if that would have been a technically more accurate title. LM2000 ( talk) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I Agee that the current title is the common name and if kept should remain as is.-- 65.92.160.124 ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As other user said, there are sources about the era (even if the WWE product stills PG, the era ended). The era existed and is notable [7] About the name change, I have seen PG Era, but never TV-PG era
• Keep Well known era of the WWE, just like the Ruthless Aggression Era, New Generation Era and Attitude Era. ★Trekker ( talk) 06:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note to closing admin: While I have identified quite a few reliable sources above, I have not yet added them to the article. I have no problem with doing so, but I have been burned too many times before by spending hours adding sources only to have an admin close the discussion and delete the article based on the number of delete votes from an early stage in the discussion (before the sources were added). I ask that you respect WP:NOTIMELIMIT and acknowledge that the existence of the sources gives the subject notability and that the sources can be added after the discussion closes. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I've added some, but not all, of the sources that you included earlier. Just to make it clear to closing admin, I struck my previous delete vote and am now solidly Keep. LM2000 ( talk) 14:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note to closing admin Bear in mind that none of the sources linked above actually provide substantial coverage of this subject. In the sources, it's only ever mentioned in passing and with very little analysis or detail. ItsKesha ( talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment While this is PG Era, WWE was PG before 1997 and in 2008 Raw and Raw related Specials shifted to PG, but SmackDown carried TV-PG ratings much longer before that, also PG Era is also alternatively known as Universe Era as per WWE 2k14 games sources. Dilbaggg ( talk) 07:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I made this point in my first comment when I !voted delete. The "PG Era" always seemed like a phrase used by some fans to attack the rating itself, but they'd been PG before so I've never understood that line of thought. However, the company did make a major shift towards family friendly programming in 2008 and that has received plenty of coverage. Many sources even use the "PG Era" name because it stuck so well that it's probably WP:COMMONNAME. "Universe Era" should redirect to this article. LM2000 ( talk) 15:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This page bears little resemblance to the one nominated for discussion. Compare diffs: [8]. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Like GaryColemanFan notes, it's a much improved page. I would have wanted to delete the original page, but I don't mind well-written versions of what some dismiss as "cruft." Real concept understood by those familiar with it, and this appears to be the common name. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per OP and ItsKesha. Additionally I think there's a lot of WP:SYNTH going on here (much like in The Reality Era article) where citations are being tied together to make this period appear more defined than it actually is. — Czello 18:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Question I don't understand the "per x" vote. They constructed their arguments and voted delete based on a completely different article than the one that exists now. Do you have any policy-based concerns about the current article? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • And the OP, Dilbaggg has since made several additions to the article. Do you still support deletion Dilbaggg? LM2000 ( talk) 05:19, 19 January 2021 (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.