- 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. Withdrawn by nominator (fixed the template, it was not properly closed). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gold Dust Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG - has been without sources for too long. I recommend moving it to userspace by creator/other. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - A lack of sources is not a deletion criteria. Meets WP:GNG. Souces at: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – What the nominator appears to be saying is yet another manifestation of the theory that our coverage of professional wrestling should mirror favored cherry-picked sources, nothing more and nothing less. The third section starts with "The threesome of Lewis, Sandow, and Mondt (later deemed "The Gold Dust Trio" in the 1937 book Fall Guys)"...stop. Google doesn't return very many hits on this book before starting to return hits on Of Mice and Men, for some reason. What I did find was convincing enough on first glance, this page especially. J. Michael Kenyon was a highly credible wrestling historian. His review would show that reliable sources have existed on this topic for at least 80+ years. There's a little thing called WP:BEFORE that folks are expected to abide by before wasting everyone's time at AFD. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This is not really how an AFD should be used. One can move the content to draftspace or a sandbox without deleting the clearly notable subject.★Trekker (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This is listed as a high-importance article and no rationale for deletion has been provided. No sources is a problem but this isn't the right solution.LM2000 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, GNG is not about article quality or lack of sources presented, despite what thr nominator seems to think.MPJ-DK (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2019 (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.