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 keep. is it usual for discussions about wrestling subjects to ignore the sourcing issue when that is the primary issue for consideration at AFD? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nexus (Professional wrestling)[edit]

The Nexus (Professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

It has barely been a month since the formation, and I feel that maybe in a couple more months notability could be established. It's also mostly a cut and paste from a section of the WWE NXT article.   Θakster   21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --  Θakster   21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable at this time.--WillC 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The group is a big thing right now and are being pushed into greatness they arn't leaving anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.155.222 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete They are becoming notable but you've got a point that it's only been a month since the formation so I gotta say they need a little be more time (But if someone says something to the contrary I might change at any time).--Curtis23's Usalions 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to WWE NXT, too early. Nikki♥311 01:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seriously, if stables like The Vinces Devils can have articles and the New Breed can have articles these guys should have an article. Plus this article is well written, so it should be kept..You are just going to have to readd it later anyway. Final Flash (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. Nikki♥311 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Nexus are here to stay, I believe, so might as well set up the page now than to delete it and make a new one when they eventually start fighting people on RAW. Also, the impact they have done already is, in my humble opinion, enough to warrant a page for them. Fantasma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The Nexus faction has been incorporated into the main event storyline of the WWE Raw brand for the last month and shows no signs of being moved off of it. One can't be much more notable than that. A better argument could be made that articles for the individual Nexus members should be eliminated and incorporated into this article since their respective careers have largely not been notable outside of NXT/Nexus. EvWill (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am now going to stay a delete now. Fantasma, You can't assume they won't end next week anyway saying that violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, the guideline in which Nikki stated before.--Curtis23's Usalions 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the reports are true and Wade Barrett is currently deported in real life due to visa issues, that could make some significant effect to the storyline before it's barely started. And speaking as a fan of this storyline, I still believe an article is not needed. The history simply consists of: beat people up, demand contracts, beat more people up, get contracts, beat even more people up. That could be summed up in a couple of sentences (and it already is through WWE NXT#Season 1). --  Θakster   07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being reported that Barrett's visa issues weren't as severe as initially thought. Th 2005 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This group is going to be very famous in the next month,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that comment, you just proved it should be deleted because you stated its not famous yet. Future notability is the same as no notability!. You can't speculate that notability will be achieved, you have to wait for it, and when its achieved, an article can be made. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also violates WP:CRYSTALBALL to.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above this. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep lots of sources and are argubly the number 1 storyline in WWE right now. STAT -Verse 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "argubly". Red Flag on the Right Side 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AFD is filled with stuff like "They will be very famous next month"-If they are they will get a page next month and this violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Arguably the #1 storyline right now" This violates WP:NPOV. "The Nexus faction has been incorporated into the main event storyline of the WWE Raw brand for the last month and shows no signs of being moved off of it."-WP:CRYSTALBALL We don't know if they'll end next week."The Nexus are here to stay, I believe, so might as well set up the page now than to delete it and make a new one when they eventually start fighting people on RAW."-WP:CRYSTALBALL."You are just going to have to read it later anyway"-WP:CRYSTALBALL. All 5 keep comments have a violation: 4 WP:CRYSTALBALL violations and 1 WP:NPOV violation. Can't you people who vote keep see that.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They are the most talked about stable in the entire WWE right now. infact perhaps of all Pro Wrestling.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a long term storyline already making headlines. They were involved in the main event at a pay per view and Barrett as it's leader does have a title match coming (unless he doesn't sort out his visa issues which I doubt). Podgy Stuffn (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They're not notable yet. The Main Event Mafia was given the same consideration during it's first few additions. It's too soon for this article. Don^MEGĂ|60645 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage in reliable publications (Pro Wrestling Torch, WrestleView, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Sky Sports) meets WP:N. The repeated "We will always say 'maybe next month'...and then, next month, repeat 'maybe next month'...and then, the month after that, repeat 'maybe next month'" needs to stop. There is no actual dividing line that will cause WP:PW to recognize someone as notable, so this discussion has happened countless other times with tag teams and stables in major promotions...always ending with the article being created months later. The only important question is "Can an article with a decent amount of detail, sourced to reliable references outside of the promotion's website, be created at this point?" Obviously, that's exactly what has already happened, so this discussion is not needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It is quite clear that this group is part of a major storyline. Pretending otherwise is ignoring the fact they have, already, been featured in two feud-events (or whatever you call it). They're at the very least here to stay until this storyline is finished. They're just as notable as any other group, arguably more so as one could say the whole point of the NXT first season was to get them over for this...which, given what's happened, seems highly likely. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can not agree with Curtis re WP:CRYSTAL because they are already doing things now, and the Barrett title shot (per Podgy) is a given. Also, they are all from the first season of NXT so it is a flow on and seperate now that we have eight new NXT rookies. Mal Case (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major part of the current WWE storyline, and several of them are better known for being in the group than individually. There is also a page for Rated-RKO, who were only together for six months. Steveweiser (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the current centerpiece of the WWE's storylines. Its notability is already established, and its potential to be further expanded on a weekly basis is through the roof. This is an extremely wasteful nomination. Vodello (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Big group right now. Muur (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The group is a notable stable of a notable television show. An article is suitable for them. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to WWE NXT and create a section for it in expansion of Season 1.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirect will only make nxt page much bigger than it needs to be. Also other wrestling stables have their own pages and if deleted it will likely end up with its own page down the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.84.84 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep They have been prominently featured on Raw since they have arrived there, and their feud with John Cena and others is seemingly always featured as the most important thing, but from the arguments above I can go either way. WWEFan225 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Storywise, they're the biggest thing WWE has going for them. They attacked the WWE's poster boy John Cena, CM Punk, Jerry Lawler, and other personalities in their official "coming out" party, attacked a former WWF champion Bret Hart the following week, and attacked the head of the WWE Vince McMahon the week after that. While they're largely seen as "rookies," the Nexus has many years of wrestling experience between them. They have become main-event players in a remarkably short time, or at best shaking up the bland storylines on the Raw brand. Nemalki (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is quite clearly a group that is being pushed by WWE and will remain so. Deletion seems redundant as the page will only need to be recreated in a months time. White43 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm relisting this because this discussion is almost worthless as an exercise of establishing consensus as hardly any of the comments have any grounding in policy. To help the next admin reviewing this discussion, please can participants comment on a) the breadth and nature of sources specific to this subject and b) whether this makes them independently notable per GNG (i.e not inherited). Whether to merge or redirect does not need admin tools to resolved so we are really only looking at delete or keep at this stage. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- on the basis of the article being about nothing but just the attacks by the group. The entire section of "Attacks" goes into detail and detail about all their attacks, but it's not informing the readers about anything. Why was the group formed? Why do they attack? Why are they still together? Why are they in unity after losing Season 1 of NXT? The fact that the members formed a group and were awarded WWE contracts even though Barrett was the only one that one NXT S. 1, can all be summarized in about 1 or 2 paragraphs in the section for the main WWE NXT article and its season 1 section. --Truco ₅₀₃ 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage in reliable publications (Pro Wrestling Torch, WrestleView, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Sky Sports) meets WP:N. That's really the only question—are they given a fair amount of discussion in reliable, non-primary sources. The answer is yes, so they meet notability guidelines. "Maybe later" is just a personal preference, IDONTLIKEIT response when the notability guideline has been met. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the nominator, I completely agree with Truco's comments which furthers my previous comments on this article. And with regards to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I do actually appreciate the stable on TV. However, I just feel that a stable that hasn't even had a single match since their formation (until next Monday, which in itself is a future event) lacks notability. --  Θakster   17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added more reason why they formed, so the guy who complained can be quite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muur (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one, be WP:CIVIL. Second of all, you added nothing but pure personal opinion. I stay with my delete. No one is arguing notability, but what is the point of an encyclopedic article that is informing the reader nothing but rather giving news about what they are doing on a weekly basis. At least Straight Edge Society has a basis to be an article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep, assuming the various sources are really considered independent of the subject, and all that (I'm not familiar with how reporting on Pro Wrestling is done). It appears that these guys have enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, regardless of whether they've fought yet or not. Being covered is sufficient for an article. Buddy431 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wrestling Observer Newsletter, WrestleView, and Pro Wrestling Torch are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide as independent websites proven reliable. Sky Sports is not specifically related to wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It has been a group for about a month now on WWE programming and it's one of the biggest angles currently in professional wrestling. They wear "N" wristbands and other various things to show they belong to this stable. It's an obvious keep because as I said, they are a major part of WWE programming and will be in following months. At least 2 of them will also have a continued career after the stable ends(doesnt look to happen anytime soon). Y5nthon5a (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2010 (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.