Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince's Devils

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vince's Devils

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:PWSTABLE. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm honestly not particularly familiar with WP:PWSTABLE or Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notability for that matter (at a glance it seems this subject matter passes at least the first of the two criteria listed in WP:PWSTABLE) but looking at the article itself, it seems to have enough significant coverage in secondary reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Since WP:N is one of the defining policies of Wikipedia, whereas WP:PWSTABLE seems to be an essay providing advice/opinions about notability, I'm inclined to think that this article passes enough muster that it deserves to be kept. — Hunter Kahn 15:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does not matter if it meets WP:PWSTABLE if it meets WP:GNG since that trumps any other argument that could be made. This really seems to be a total misunderstandign of how the wikipedia guidelines work and should really be a snow keep. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources doen't work. Also, most part of the sources look like weekly TV reports of RAW, but not focused con the subject, the stable, instead the whole TV show. Other sources are interviews with the wrestlers, but it doesn´t mention the stable The wrestlers are notable, but I don't see the stable as notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources only have to be non-trivial coverage, they don't have to focus exclusively on the subject. It appears to pass WP:GNG which takes precedence over other guidelines or essays. Additionally, while I am not a wrestling fan, it appears that they meet criteria 1 for WP:PWSTABLE anyway "have appeared consistently as a tag team or group over the course 3 months for one of the above-mentioned professional wrestling promotions". IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Borgia Venedict (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG per the sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Analog Horror, (Speak) 02:32, 17 March 2020 (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.