Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE NXT


 * 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The result was   '''Withdrawn. Today is when the show finally had enough info to deserve an article (despite the opinions of those below, the article should have been deleted before today because the article failed WP:N) because WWE issued a press release detailing the show'''.  TJ   Spyke   20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE NXT

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not enough info to warrant a article. The only confirmed info is the name, date, and possible people who will be on the roster. I would compare this to a movie article where the only known info is the basic plot of the movie and its location. In a couple of weeks there will be enough info, but not in its current state.  TJ   Spyke   21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  —  TJ   Spyke   21:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  —  TJ   Spyke   21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Simply because it's going to be recreated a week from now anyway. The current information on the article is supported by reliable sources according to WP:PW and the article itself was just in the middle of a significant expansion with other established users having offered to contribute. Just my 2 cents.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Talk about not even giving the article a chance. It's currently in the middle of a planned expansion and plus with less than two weeks until its planned debut, it's pretty pointless even considering deletion if without a doubt it will be recreated with more information likely to be revealed in such a short time.--  Θaks  ter   22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Planned expansion"? The current info in the article is the ONLY info that has been confirmed in the article, and even some of the info that is currently in is unsourced. So the "expansion" won't happen until WWE announced more about it. I am not against the article being re-created in the future, but the article was NOT ready to be moved back into the mainspace.  TJ   Spyke   22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well considering Bullet used both the in use and under construction templates yesterday shows to me that he was in the middle of expanding the article, and he even mentioned here that he was planning to do so. I've already offered help with the article, and I believe it can be expanded even with the mystique WWE are current displaying when promoting the show. For instance, a production/show history section could easily be placed in right now charting last week's announcement of the show, not to mention briefly about the naming controversy with the Scottish feeder fed. --  Θaks  ter   00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hardly think the Scottish one is worth noting considering how unnotable it is. I'm not sure what history you are talking about as everything about the history of the show is already in it.  TJ   Spyke   00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as stated above. The page will be recreated within the next two weeks anyway. There is no good reason why it should be deleted. It would be pointless to remove it now. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have already countered all of the arguments. There is no good reason to keep the article, all the known info can fit in a small 1 paragraph in the ECW article until there is enough info to justify the show having a article (which it doesn't yet).  TJ   Spyke   00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only this time, remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jair (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No sense in deleting it unless the show is canceled within a couple months.  In all fairness, the article shouldn't have been created until the first airing...at least. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- what's the point in deletion when the show airs in a week and half? Especially being a series aired on a NBC-owned network.-- T ru  c o   503 22:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep its well sourced there will be more added to it in a week or so.-- Steam   Iron  23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The show is debuting in less than two weeks, and there's enough verifiable information to justify at least a stub (which is where the article stands at present). Jeff Silvers (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has been confirmed as WWE programming, and represents a major change in direction within the organisation. That by itself is a pass for WP:N so it should stay.  !! Just a Punk !!  22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's speculation that its a major change. This seems silly to keep a article that clearly fails WP:N just because info will be coming soon. It should not have been de-userfied yet, it should be userfied again and maybe brought back in a week.  TJ   Spyke   23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speculation? Vince McMahon announces that ECW is going off the air and the talent are all free agents, and you deny what is obviously a major change as speculation? *dumbfounded*  !! Just a Punk !!  23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The speculation is that it represents a major change in the direction of WWE (which is hyperbole).  TJ   Spyke   00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation or hyperbole. It's fact. It's no different to a change in chairman for a company for instance. It's a major change. The only way you can object is to claim that the change isn't happening at all - which would be a ridiculous claim.  !! Just a Punk !!  00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is just speculation and hyperbole. How the blazes is it a major change for WWE? From what little info is known, WWE is basically just taking their FCW TV show (which airs in the Tampa area) and airing it nationwide. Yeah, that is a BIG change (:rolleyes:). Also, changing chairmans at a company doesn't always mean a change in a companies direction (yet alone a major one). It's ridiculous to claim it's a change at all for WWE based on what we know, it's totally ludicrous to claim that it's gonna be a major one.   TJ   Spyke   00:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *shakes head* I'll leave it to the admin who makes the final decision on whether to delete or keep. It's quite clear that we have two completely different definitions of "major change". Let's see who's right in effect when the decision is made.  !! Just a Punk !!  22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep even the nominator admits this will be brought back in a week, it's both silly and pointless to delete it for a week, there are much better ways to improve wikipedia.  MPJ  -DK 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made my feelings known earlier. But this TJ Spike seems to have a bee in his bonnet about it. It clearly is something that he cares deeply about and it is obvious that he has real passion about it. While we may all see this as a sad and pointless exercise, TJ Spike clearly doees not. So lets just let him delete it. It will be recreated in a week or so anyway. At least this way, we can let Mr. Spike get on with his life without him having to worry about this terrible terrible situation any longer than he has to. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, please. I might not agree with him on this topic, but there was certainly no need for that. --  Θaks  ter   11:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, give the refs I think we can ignore whether or not it may happen, which would be the only reason to delete it. Less than ten days until it debuts why delete then recreate? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are many pages on Wikipedia with less information than this and they stay on so why should this be an exception? Also it's going to debut in a few weeks anyway, so if it was deleted it would just cause people to have to re-create it again and it would just be a waste of time deleting this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though there is 1 day left in the AFD, I am withdrawing based on the info WWE released today. TODAY is when the show finally deserved an article, before today it should have been deleted. To the above user, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a failed argument that is always rejected.  TJ   Spyke   20:30, 16 February 2010 (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.