Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3MB (3rd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is to delete this article. Should someone want it salted, I would suggest that this be requested at Requests for page protection  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3MB
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Same concern as past two deletion nominations: Sources in article add nothing in terms of notability to the previously-deleted one. Fails WP:GNG —  Richard  BB  14:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep in the previous AfD it seemed that people knew this passed the GNG but nobody cared enough to get sources. Here's some:.  Should be enough to cover all concerns.LM2000 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep they fit everything for an individual tag team page. They have a theme and have promos for them. After a year they might be floundering but they are established. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP (edited): They haven't had an article until now. Even though they lose a lot, this page is worth keeping. They are still an established tag team. D-Generation X and The Brothers of Destruction may have been way more notable, but this article is still worth keeping. They deserve an article. 76.220.66.126 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt They aren't really notable, the page is poorly sourced barely sourced as it is. They're are barley a team. Per Generally acceptable standards for pro wrestling, fails WP:ENTERTAINER - recently-established team of "heels" with no history of influence/notability. Also, article's references (all of which emanate from the WWE) fail the reliable source standard of being independent of the subject. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They've been around for over a year and the sources I've provided pass the minimum requirements for the WP:GNG bar. As I've said before, it seems that in the previous AfD others knew there were sources out there to save the article, and now we have them.  However the article itself has not improved, so if it survives deletion it will need work.  If it doesn't survive deletion then it needs to be salted because this is the third time this article has been remade with no improvements.LM2000 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No notable as tag team or stable. No notable feuds or matches. We can put the information in the singles articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - Nothing at all has changed since the last AfD, the team has still not been significantly covered in reliable sources. The whole article is basicly weekly events and they fail WP:GNG.  STATic  message me!  18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt—I've yet to see any references, in the article, or in this discussion, that show this is a notable group. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE or brief mentions.  In my opinion, they fail the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: When you delete put an administrator lock so no one will be able to remake it. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 01:22, 23 October 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.