Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMahon–Helmsley Faction

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. The majority's arguments that there is no coverage of this group in the required depth are persuasive. Sandstein 14:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon–Helmsley Faction

McMahon–Helmsley Faction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly no attempt at WP:BEFORE. Reliable sources found within seconds on Google Books for McMahon-Helmsley Faction, as well as the two variants bolded in the lead: McMahon-Helmsley Regime, and McMahon-Helmsley Era. Making such a bold and easily disproven claim of no sources being available makes it hard to assume good faith. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked for all three names. Nothing. So which book is the reliable source that covers this topic in depth? ItsKesha (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete if appropriate. This is more of a plotline than a faction, they didn't wrestle as a group (well, not much), so pretty much all of this can be placed into the corresponding articles (I'd assume it already is). You could probably thoroughly source this, and it still not be notable, per
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Lee Vilenski: Maybe a Merge with The Authority (professional wrestling). Both are stables led by HHH and Stephanie, controlling WWF/E. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i am inclined to support keep but fact that the article has existed without any
  WP:RS for a decade is baffling. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • They are quite hard to find. I didn't search as deeply as I usually do, but I couldn't turn up anything that actually documented this in a quick search when it first came around. The individual people were documented, but an "Era" or a "Faction" is quite hard to find. ItsKesha has asked a valid question, and I'd like to know the answer, too. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't responded to the question above because I don't respond to ItsKesha's questions. With that said, a very quick search shows that the faction is discussed on page 132 in [1], 161 in [2], 141 of [3], 172 of [4], 124 in [5], 270 in [6], and within [7], [8], [9]. That's just Google Books. A web search would turn up even more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Literally all of those are single sentence mentions. The group is not discussed in any depth, there is no significant coverage in any of those books. ItsKesha (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment ItsKesha Yeah i agree with you on this, gonna vote delete. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the Baltimore Sun: "The McMahon-Helmsley Era was a glorious one indeed. The couple's reign in the WWF, which spanned the latter part of 1999 through 2000, was the main story line during a time when the WWF was at its peak both creatively and in popularity." Pretty hard to make a claim that what a major independent reliable sources claims was the top story at the height of the biggest promotion's peak of popularity doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment One paragraph in an article entitled "Valentine's Day special: Top 10 wrestling couples". Again, where's the significant coverage - "more than a trivial mention". Can you please take the time to double-check the GNG? ItsKesha (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POTENTIAL. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per my above discussion with ItsKesha . Dilbaggg (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (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.