Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeri-Show
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Brandon (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeri-Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Team fails the tests for notability, as with previous examples of temporary teams. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete This article (and various versions like Chris Jericho and The Big Show) have been deleted for not being notable and this article shows no indication of notability. Any new article on them has to show signs of notability the moment its created. TJ Spyke 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Qualifies for a speedy under G4 in my book. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Would it be correct to actually prod this as a speedy? I suspect not but it's definitely a G4 as Rick said. !! Justa Punk !! 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see any reason why there can't be an article for Jeri-Show. There are a lot worse articles that need tending to. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nikki♥311 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Mr. C.C. Freebird (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fishhead2100 said "I don't see any reason why there can't be an article", this lack of vision by Fishhead2100 and ignorance of the guidelines on notability is what you agree with? Darrenhusted (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per precedent with other temporary teams. Nikki♥311 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE G4 Why is this still here? It has been deleted under other names already as previously indicated, and that's a flagrant G4 situation. Admin attention to this AfD is needed. GetDumb 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can see why people would think they are notable. But most of their time together can be sumed up in the individual articles.--WillC 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are plenty of small threads like this that could be summed up, but were not different like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Col%C3%B3ns, which is another group of wrestlers like these two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.22.102 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For those asking why it wasn't speedied, the reason is simple, the merit of the team was being discussed at the time, and so I went for a PROD, when that was removed I brought it here. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked, and thanks. Suggest that when (or if I guess) this article is deleted, it should be noted that any future discussion of merit should be on the Wiki Project Wrestling Page. Perhaps that is where we can reach a consensus if future developments cause a change in notability (which shouldn't be discounted as maybe happening such is the world of pro wrestling). !! Justa Punk !! 08:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article was previously deleted two months ago for a lack of notability and two months later it still seems that way. -- Θakster 20:24, 25 November 2009 (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.