Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Nations (professional wrestling) (2nd 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The result was Withdrawn. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The League of Nations (professional wrestling)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough. There are other stables more notable, like 3MB who does not have their page. The article was deleted once here and there has not been any major updates. The creator has been blocked because of sock puppetry. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 18:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Its notability is well justified. Will try to initiate plans for WP:PW specific notability guidelines. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 17:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep While the team was unremarkable with in ring performance, their reception and usage as an attempt to get Roman Reigns over makes the stable notable enough for inclusion. Plus, their two championship reigns earlier on, one with the WWE Championship, adds more merit to them having an article. It also clearly shows why they didn't make sense and how their intended purpose resulted in criticism. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Roman Reigns reception part has its own separate page and I don't think that has to do anything with the significance of the subject of this page. As for the championships, they are individual accomplishments, again nothing significant for the team. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The previous deletion discussion isn't exactly fair, as it was done a month into their run, and the argument was WP:TOOSOON, which is clearly no longer the case.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N. The reception section by itself is enough to affirm notability. KyleJoan talk  01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – passes WP: GNG, the reception section is proof of that. StaticVapor message me!   01:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I voted delete last time but actually had been planning on bringing this up to GA status recently; I'm responsible for expanding the reception section to include comments from up to a year after their time together. Passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2019 (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.