Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Money Inc.

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Money Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A non-notable wrestling tag team. They have existed for just under a month and have done nothing notable enough to warrant an article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be deleted but they have been around for longer than a month. Storm and Roode have been tagging together on and off for about 6 months.--WillC 07:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, same as The Badd guys. -- iMatthew _T.C. 09:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. Since the article on Beer Money has already been made, and they're already involved in a major angle, shouldn't we take enough time to see where this goes before jumping the gun of deletion here? Because if we do, and they end up teaming regularly for almost about as long as another team made up of two singles stars, namely Rated-RKO, managed to team up, and the article has to be created all over again, that's unnecessary hassle, don't you think? 74.233.7.247 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And don't give me that crap about how since I'm not a logged-in member my say doesn't count under Wikipedia guidelines, because that quite frankly is a bullshit excuse for invalidating a perfectly logical opinion. If people who aren't logged in don't matter, then protect the damn entry so they can't post their opinions in the first place, as opposed to letting them talk just to tell them they don't count, which is bottom line shady and rude.)

You may want to read Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those on being civil. You have nine edits on this one article, clearly you feel a level of ownership, but the risks of creating an article (an especially one with no sources) is that it may end up being deleted. Darrenhusted (talk)

• Delete, not notable as of yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki311 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable as of yet. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep.PepsiPlunge13™ 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PepsiPlunge13 (talk • contribs)

• Delete not notable to have. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not DELETE!!! It's a good article about a pro wrestling stable.It shouldn't be deleted. --Tiberiu Balint (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others 1362^talk 16:57, 11 July 2008 (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.