Template:Did you know nominations/WWE removing Attitude Era footage

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Moswento ^talky 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WWE removing Attitude Era footage

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that WWE removes controversial footage on the Internet by request, and pursues over 5,000 unauthorized videos per month on YouTube alone?

Created/expanded by Wweattitude4life (talk). Self nom at 23:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note that after nomination, this article got hit by excessive tagging from a brand new editor using Page Curation. The editor who did it only has 23 total edits and only created their own account on Nov. 26. I question the tagger's knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Seems over-the-top. As an example, one of the issues cited in the tagging is bare urls. I couldn't find any bare urls, and no editor has done corrections since the tagging. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, I am open to corrections. Let's do what we can because I feel this is a great article and a strong hook. And there's no stopping us from reaching the nomination if it is corrected.--Wweattitude4life (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the tagger doesn't know what he or she is doing. However, this doesn't mean that the article doesn't have issues. I'm quite dubious of some of the public perception claims, especially "A majority of wrestling fans claim this was censorship for the political gain of Linda McMahon" at the beginning of the Perception section. The online article cited has nothing at all in it about wrestling fans. If the sourcing is based on aggregating the replies to this article and ascribing it to "a majority of wrestling fans", that's completely invalid statistically. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing has been done to address the issues above, and the creator/expander has edited only once on Wikipedia since December 6. Progress needs to be made soon, or the nomination will have to be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am here. I want to have the page on the DYK page. What else can I do?--Wweattitude4life (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article can be recovered to the point where it is something we would be happy to put on the main page, so regretfully . Currently it reads like an essay, there are some serious issues with both sourcing and neutrality, and parts are difficult to comprehend. As a basic example, it took me some time to understand exactly what was being removed. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)