Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brass Ring Club

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. Missvain (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Ring Club

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

A trio that lasted for less than a month does not meet WP:GNG. By the February 5 episode of SmackDown, source Rose had already broken away from the group. Plus, Cesaro and Kidd are no longer feuding with New Day, which is why they were a trio in the first place. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL come to mind as well. The first because it was created before anything was truly established, the second because it was presumed it'd become something. It didn't. That's why those policies exist. oknazevad (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for nominating this Starship, it saved me some time. The Masters of the WWE Universe article has just been deleted and it covered the same material as this article. If that failed WP:GNG then this must too.LM2000 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fail...but WEAK Keep Well really I would delete it but preserve it for future reconsideration, maybe a month or so. If it still fails, it fails. makk makk3232 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.138.7 (talk) [reply]

That would not be necessary, since unless the article was protected against recreation it can be created again once decent sourcing can be provided. I don't think it should be kept on that basis.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think BurningGlass12 would want the deleted article moved to their user page. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, premature article. Fails WP:GNG currently. Nikki♥311 05:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 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.