Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Attitude Era footage removal


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WWE Attitude Era footage removal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essay-like investigative journalistic piece. Clear violation of WP:NOT -LM2000 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 8.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  03:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment The article should be merged as a section in the main WWE article in a much condensed form.--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Oversourced and overlong article which comes down to "WWE asserted their copyrights and asked for their videos to be pulled down from YouTube", along with stopping them from becoming obnoxious political cannon fodder. That, and many of the sources are either blogs or fansites, it's poorly sourced and most of the text is quotes that should not be that long.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is there to merge, bar for the "WWE asserted their copyrights and asked for their videos to be pulled down from YouTube" that the user above pointed out? The stuff about the senate campaign is better suited to articles relating to that campaign... there's already a bit about Youtube controversies on her campaign article here.  Seems to me that this article is so bloated that everything in it pertaining to WWE, and not the Linda senate campaign, can be boiled down to a few sentences.  I wouldn't be opposed to reliably sourced content related to this issue being briefly mentioned on the WWE article but merging this bloated poorly sourced article into that one, as a whole (or only slightly condensed), would be a disaster. Scratch that, I would most likely be opposed to that as well. I'm not entirely sure how those boiled down sentences could improve the current WWE article.LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Yes I agree the article in too big and it is tough to cut it down. So i cast my vote in favour of deletion.--Robustdsouza (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete companies can and do make youtube and other sites take down copyrighted material all the time, it's not at all a big deal. If anyone can reliably source the allegations that it has anything to do with whitewashing Linda McMahon, then that criticism belongs in her article, not a seperate one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly article with trivial subject matter. Feed  back  ☎ 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Starblind. If a substantial case for this can be made it should be included in Linda's article rather than having its own. —  Richard  BB  12:20, 15 May 2013 (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.