Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undefeated WrestleMania streak of The Undertaker

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 keep. further discussion of a merge would be helpful Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated WrestleMania streak of The Undertaker[edit]

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

The article adds limited new information and primarily duplicates information from elsewhere on the site. The existing section on the page The Undertaker is adequate. McPhail (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can improve the article. Talk about the matches, the streak itself as a accomplishments. If nobody improves the article, I'll vote Delete. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been up for, what, a week? Not everything on Wikipedia needs to be absolutely perfect straight away. The article will be improved over time to include further information.
There is no duplication of other text from this website because I wrote it all myself, and it's all sourced.
The existing section on the page of The Undertaker is just a list of matches, and makes zero mention of anything else i.e. how the feuds happened, what happened in the matches. So, your three reasons for deletion are all horrifically wrong. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of the bigger stories within wrestling and this article offers a unique insight into the individual matches. Meets WP:N as there's been plenty of coverage in mainstream sources beyond even the wrestling press. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a big story enough by the time it was ended. Definitely needs expansion though, on the match types. The table in the accomplishments section of the Undertaker should be deleted. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, was arguably one of WWE's biggest storylines/attractions of the past decade. I do think that the article certainly needs some work but that's another matter.LM2000 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information is available for an article. TMDrew (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My reasoning for delete is not because it isn't notable, I find that it is, instead because everything discussed is found in The Undertaker. Also, in its current condition it is not a good article as it is written mostly in universe as if Undertaker legitimately defeated people and has magical powers or that Lesnar's F-5s were really that devastating that Undertaker legitimately did not kick-out of a pin. These issues need to be resolved, not ignored. I say blow it and up and start over, not like we are losing the information. It also could use a better name.--WillC 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since there's been plenty of media attention. GNG definitely satisfied. 82.132.226.244 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Absolutely meets notability requirements. Covered by tons of media sources, the article needs work, not deletion. Gloss 22:47, 8 January 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.