Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team LayCool


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Team LayCool

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

They are not notable as team. There is no tag team championship for divas, and no significant accomplishments as team. The creator of the article has possible conflict of interest. Armbrust Talk  Contribs  23:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: a google search revealed some decent sources demonstrating notability; I'll add these to the article in a moment. This includes this, this, this, and this. Strong evidence that this meets WP:GNG.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable as a team. Stub article that any relevant information could(and should) easily go in the respective article. Spoke shook (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've provided multiple sources which show that the team has received media attention, and a google search yields several more; I'm not sure I see how the team is non-notable.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the sources you provided: WWE.com is a primary source, divadirt is not a reliable source, zimbio is a video of a match, and skysports is the website for a channel that airs WWE, so I'm not sure it can be considered a "reliable source that is independent of the subject". A Google News search only provides more of the same. Nikki  ♥  311   17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are produced by the team, so none of them are actually primary sources, IMO.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even the official website of WWE? That's like saying the official website of a television show is not a primary source for the characters on the show. Nikki  ♥  311   19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably have a point there; still, Sky Sports is certainly independent. I also found a news article which mentioned a newsletter as its source and I'm trying to hunt down the newsletter (the news article was on what appeared to be a peer-reviewed site so isn't much use in itself).  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per my reasoning above. The team is not independently notable of the individual wrestlers. Nikki  ♥  311   17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Very notable as a team. Being "Co-Champions" with the Women's title is a special feat. With the upcoming Unification match, they may even prove to be the LAST Women's Champions. Definitely worth inclusion. There've also been a few other title reigns within the group. The idea that because there's no women's tag team championship, when championships are just props in pro wrestling, means that a women's tag team can't be noteworthy is ridiculous. Again, I reiterate, keep. Josh (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please let's remember that we are talking about choreographed entertainment here, not sport, so the web sites of the promoter and the televisor are certainly not independent, and any position of champion or co-champion is simply a theatrical role, not a personal achievement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: This team has only been together s short while, and with the nature of modern "sports entertainment" may well have other storyline partners/friends/whatever soon. Remember also that Chris Jericho and Chyna were co-Intercontinental Champion for a while, but there's no page for them. Until they can establish some sort of REAL notability, there does not seem reason to have a separate article. Any relevant information can be placed in their respective articles. This isn't the wrestling wiki,a it's Wikipedia, and articles on every teaming or storyline in wrestling history does seem to be going overboard. Spoke shook (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (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.