Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Buffed

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. There is a rough consensus here that the article does not meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Buffed

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pro wrestling tag team not very notable (just the feud with O'Haire and Palumbo during the end of WCW). I think that this feud can be resume in Lex Luger and Buff Bagwell. Sismarinho (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see a lot of article about WWE tag team created just because they existed in the 2005-2015 (ShoMiz, Air Boom, London and Kendrick, John Morrison and The Miz, The New Day, Team Hell No, Jeri-Show). Some doesn't even have an actual tag team name, and others are just occasional teams (Big Show and Kane). I don't see why this article must be deleted just because it's an old team while we have plenty of article about recent teams which are created the day the team makes its debut on TV. Jeangabin (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. An article is kept if its subject matter has significant coverage in reliable third party sources (WP:GNG). Nikki♥311 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WCW went under before they really made a mark, fails GNG. All of the teams Jeangabin listed above went on to gain some success. Most of the stuff here is covered more thoroughly in the The Magnificent Seven (professional wrestling) article, anything that isn't there can be merged to their individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourced have been added, and GNG is satisfied through multiple references in third-party reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the team barely did enough for a section in the individe articles. Much less a seperate article. MPJ -US 17:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.