Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Down


 * 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. Secret account 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Lo Down

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Short lived tag team without notability or feuds HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - they were around for the best part of a year during the time when WWE television ratings were at a peak. McPhail (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - "were around" is wrestle minor matches in Metal and Heat between july and January? 7 lines of article, no PPV matches, notable feuds or memorable matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - They still got a lot more exposure than virtually any indy tag team by virtue of being on global TV. "Notable feuds" and "Memorable matches" are both pretty subjective. McPhail (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: And both wrestlers have his own article, but we're talking about his career as tag team. 6 month, 7 lines. We can put 7 lines in the articles, but create an article about a tag team like this is too much. Also no notable feuds or memorable matches aren't subjetive. time in TV (no minor weekly matches), time and matches in PPV, awards by the critics... Lo Down had two or three matches in 6 months in the tertiary tv show of the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - it's certainly a marginal case, but on balance I would favour keeping the article given that the WWF was so highly viewed at the time. McPhail (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Maybe 6 months around isn't that much these days, but back then it was worth a lot more  Crisis  .  E  X  E   12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete- This article seems to be notable due to their exposure on television and their significant coverage, but let's look at what WP:GNG says: significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.
 * Key word there is "stand-alone article". This is the perfect example of an article that doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should instead be mentioned in the individual D'Lo and Chaz articles. Keeping this article is an example of WP:CRUFT as well as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Feed  back  ☎ 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Delete A lot of people saw them, sure, but a lot of people saw them do not much at all. After trimming the wordiness, what's here can easily fit into each member's article as a few sentences, if it's not already there (it is, so I changed my vote). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 26 March 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.