Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicious and Delicious

: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, without prejudice to renomination - Philippe | Talk 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

=[[Vicious and Delicious]]=

:{{la|Vicious and Delicious}} ([{{fullurl:Vicious and Delicious|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicious and Delicious}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable tag team. They did nothing notable as a team itself. Being a part of the New World Order doesn't instantly make this team more important. Relevant information is already on the Scott Norton and Buff Bagwell articles. From the article log: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Vicious_and_Delicious], this has been deleted in the past twice. Recreation shouldn't have happened in the first place. I suggest a protection delete if this doesn't survive this deletion debate. Also it should be noted: the article creator removed the prod I placed on this, and gave no reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::Comment The other two deletions occured within weeks of each other and over two years ago. The first deletion did not occur after a debate but because of an expired PROD - meaning, no debate took place. You phrase your PROD statement "it should never have been recreated" as if there was some sort of consensus. There was no consensus on deleting the article, just silence and wikipedia policy. McJeff (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as the team themselves are not notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the following reasons.
  • The assertion that the team is unnotable is arbitrary and unreasonable. They were together for two years during WCW's boom period and were solid fixtures of the WCW midcard scene. That's notable.
  • The "relevant information" does NOT appear in both articles. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear in either. Both articles merely claim that such a team as Vicious and Delicious existed with no further explanation. It does not appear at all in the Buff Bagwell article. The Bagwell article merely mentions that such a team existed. The info does appear in the Norton article.
  • Unlike many stub class articles, it is well sourced.
  • McJeff (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced and notable enough. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:Comment. It should be noted Dan and Jeff edit other articles together, so it's likely McJeff told Dan to come here. From the recent edits of Dan, there is no wrestling related ones. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::Comment He and I work on one article together. And I'm sure the fact that he and I told you off on the discussion page for aforementioned article has nothing to do with the fact that you PROD'd this one. McJeff (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2008 (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.