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. Daniel ( talk) 11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The New Era (WWE)

The New Era (WWE) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Out of the 24 sources on this article, only one uses the phrase "New Era" (and it's a primary source, which should be avoided). This article appears to largely be a WP:SYNTH collection of links used to back up a marketing catchphrase.

See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Secondary_sources_for_notability: Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. and, similarly, Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep.

The notability of this bit of WWE branding is not established anywhere, and the article has largely been cobbled together to justify one of WWE's buzzwords, one which hasn't been used in about 5 years.

Again, fails both WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG — Czello 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Czello 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Term is used in multiple reliable secondary sources. A quick search found: WrestleView, a book from Simon & Schuster, ESPN, The Post and Courier, CBS, NBC, Sports Illustrated, Philly Voice, CBS (again), a CBS affiliate, Fox Sports, Pro Wrestling Torch, and Figure Four/Wrestling Observer. Please perform WP:BEFORE search before nominating articles covered in so many reliable sources. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Plus The Boston Globe 12/29/16 (John Cena: "I'm sick of this New Era B.S. It ain't the New Era. It's the My Time Is Now Era."), The Montgomery Advertiser 7/21/16 ("WWE Begins New Era with some Unexpected Victories"), The Montgomery Advertiser 5/29/16 ("This bold move will have major ramifications for all of WWE and exemplify the New Era..."). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep These articles keep coming back to AfD but they aren't getting deleted. There's a reason for that. The article is in horrible shape, the fanpage tag is there for a good reason, but those aren't grounds for deletion. Gary's responses prove notability. LM2000 ( talk) 05:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Gary gave several sources covering the New Era. I don't like the idea, since looks more like a promotional effort from WWE, but several sources prove the notability. Maybe, it's like PG Era, needs a lot of work. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, there really is no substantial coverage of this alleged period of time. There's nothing to define this era. The prose currently in the article is either information that can be expanded upon within their own separate articles which already correctly exist (reception of Reigns, women's revolution, brand split), or expanded upon in the History of WWE article. ItsKesha ( talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep As it is sufficiently notable and well-sourced and coverage per WP:RS, arguably the most prominent thing in the wrestling world today and should not be deleted based on personal views and WP:OR of individual editors. The new era that begun in 2016, is mentioned in multiple WP:PW/RS and many other mainstream accepted WP:RS including WWE themselves {even if you discount that as primary there are plenty more}: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and many other WP:PW/RS and other main stream WP:RS, I could go on and on. So please do not delete it based on the personal views of individual editors. Dilbaggg ( talk) 09:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment 1) "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable" - None of the above sources contain any in-depth coverage, merely reporting and conjecture. 2) "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" - almost all the above sources are from the same two month period. 3) "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" - this is definitely not true of this period of time. Also misses the criteria for WP:CFORK and WP:NTEMP, and is definitely WP:SYNTH judging by the proposed sources. ItsKesha ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as noted, it seems to be a largely made up "era". Actually just a part of the history of WWE and there is a section in the main article called "Second brand split (2016–present)" which is surely sufficient. Nigej ( talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: WP:SYNTH is a bogus claim. WWE has stated that the era exists, and many secondary sources have accepted this. Reporting what happens during an era is not synthesis. I've seen arguments in this string of era AfDs about "only sources that specifically use the phrasing "x era" can be used for this article. That's obviously untrue. The big events from 2016-present are fair game, as they fall within the era. To draw a parallel, if a policy or program was put forward during an era in American politics (New Deal, Great Society, etc.--or even the Great Depression, for that matter), it could be included because it falls within the era. To say that the source would need to specifically state "x was a policy enacted during the y era" makes no sense. WP:GNG has been met easily by the sources provided. There is in-depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources. Even the ones mentioned above need to be considered, as an AfD is about potential, not just current state. WP:CFORK does not apply, as there is enough information to split off an article (we wouldn't say that the Great Society era should just be part of a "History of the United States" article). WP:NTEMP says the opposite of what ItsKesha believes it does. Notability, once established (as it was by the in-depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources) does not disappear--if it was notable then, it's notable now. Being a catchphrase/marketing strategy has nothing to do with notability. WP:GNG determines notability. As an example, see the Afd for Where's Herb?, a notoriously bad marketing campaign for Burger King. It was determined that there was enough in the sources for a separate article (which was subsequently expanded and passed a GA review). Marketing campaigns can be notable--even if it's for a "made up era". GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• However we already have a WWE article and a History of WWE article. Also having articles on short made-up marketing "eras" of WWE seems to me to be excessive. Per WP:N "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." In my view this topic should be merged in History of WWE (which in fact it already is). Nigej ( talk) 09:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The discussion of deletion of these articles shows why exactly it too should not be deleted [9] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reality Era. The New Era covers many significant periods like women's revolution (should have also been enlisted in articles related to feminism category for deletion), Wednesday Night Wars, just like Monday Night Wars in the Attitude Era, 2nd brand split and the impact of the covid pandemic just to name a few. It is a very significant period and covered across numerous WP:RS and WP:PW/RS and thus should stay. Dilbaggg ( talk) 04:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• As I noted above, we are allowed to combine articles. The fact that the article is only a little larger than the section at History of WWE persuades me that we don't need a separate article. Nigej ( talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

There doesn't have to be a merger based on your single opinion. The History of WWE article summarizes the most important factors of each era 1953-2021, ongoing, but the prominent eras like these merit their own "main article" to include more information that would make the History of WWE article too long to add on its own page. These seperate articles liek this and Attitude Era article and all gives more details and add value to WP:PW. Cheers. Dilbaggg ( talk) 07:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per GaryColemanFan. I don't see how after all that has been said this could be considered SYNTH. Also: all of the 'eras' are topics of high importance in the scope of this project. Possibly, content should be moved from primary article to each 'era' main article (to unburden the primary article), but it can't be convincingly argued that a separate article isn't needed now, when it's counter to established norm. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 07:29, 11 February 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.