Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Expose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). - Daniel.Bryant 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Expose

Extreme Expose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A completely non notable group «»bd(talk stalk) 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. How is it non-notable? They are a group on ECW: a new group, but either way it's a current group. I think we should wait before just deleting this. If the group doesn't last long: then delete it. There is no need to delete it now: it's doing no harm. RobJ1981 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How are they notable? Kellys Expose segments were hardly notable for her own page, all this is is that times three. It can be (and is) mentioned on the separate pages.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) page for now. If subject stays around or expands then this can be restored, however there's a good chance they'll be gone before they can make any sort of lasting impression. Citicat 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really notable in the scope of things at this point, maybe reconsider after a set period. If tag team champions page's are deleted (and rightfully so), then there is no reason for this to be there, that's far less notable. Booshakla 21:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delele Three untalented bimbos dancing for 2 minutes? Talk about cruft. TJ Spyke 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, It would make more sense, if they keep doing this (and it seems they will), to add a "recurring segments" section to the ECW article like what's on the RAW and SmackDown! ones. Unless these three girls suddenly become a womans division there's just no need for an article all about them.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with the possibility of recreating the article should this group become more notable. As an aside, I support user Bdve's suggestion to add a "recurring segments" section to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). Jeff Silvers 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep They appeared again on ECW, so it seems like it will be a continuous thing, so I say keep it. Kris Classic 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Three appearances already and likely many more. Tim Long 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because they appear does not make them notable. «»bd(talk stalk) 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Nine results from five sites?«»bd(talk stalk) 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was under the impression WP:N merely required multiple third party sources. Could you be more specific? Addhoc 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
All those are are mentions that they do exist and have appeared. That doesn't make them notable, because they haven't done anything worth noting. «»bd(talk stalk) 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Addhoc's research: no non-trivial reporting exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (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.