Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails WP:GNG. Problem is, this tag team has not done really anything to really be notified by anyone other than WWE. This article has no reliable sources either and I don't see any major ones. They haven't even won a tag team title or have been together that long. I suggest deleting this article. Srsrox (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  18:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think a mention in each of Místico (Sin Cara) and Rey Mysterio with links between the two would be appropriate and should suffice. I can't see any reason why this particular partnership (which doesn't seem to be specifically verified by reliable sources) is notable in its own right. By all means, if the pair go on to "make beautiful (smack down) music together" then I would have no problem with an article being recreated. Stalwart 111  03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - "They haven't been together long enough," "They haven't done anything," "They haven't won any titles," etc., are not valid reasons for deletion. I don't know why people persist with these rationales. I do agree, however, that the complete lack of sources is a valid reason for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believe I mentioned notability and lack of sources as the reasons of why it should be deleted, not what you quoted. Those are simply additional arguments I'm adding to my already-valid points that Wikipedia accepts. Srsrox (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability, and I tend to agree that even if coverage is produced, crossreferences are more likely to be encyclopedically appropriate than this article. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (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.