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. Notability, requiring multiple independent reliable secondary sources have not been found to address the arguments for deletion. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

III (professional wrestling)[edit]

Non-notable professional wrestling stable that just formed at the end of April. There are no third party sources to help identify notability. The championships and accomplishments is a summary of what all the members have won in the past (when they weren't part of the group), and the team hasn't won anything yet as a team. Nikki♥311 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See reference 1^ "NWA Charlotte". http://www.nwacharlotte.com. May 12, 2009. http://www.nwacharlotte.com. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.

Also see NWA Charlotte

Also See Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler)

Also see NWA Homepage

Need any more? ldeffinbaugh 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are all primary, so none of them help indicate notability. So yes, I do need some more. Nikki♥311 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can see notability in the stable, but with only sources regrading the wrestlers that are third party and the rest are primary, I just don't see the notability in needing an article. Though that may seem confusing; what I'm trying to say is: the stable seems notable enough to write about in bios, but not enough to need its own article. Multiple titles are listed, but were any of them actually won during the group? It is a stable article, but it is made to were it lists each wrestler's history, which is not what the article should be. Without that, the article is nothing. The history of the stable is best to just be noted within each wrestler's own article. For now, I have to vote delete, because I don't see enough sources to justify notability.--WillC 06:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteIf you view groups such as the four horseman they have history of members and of singles acomplishments. This is an established team. To make the argument that there is not enough done as a team then lets look at other "Teams/Groups" that have not won championships as a "Group" TNA had a group who was called the "The Elite Guard". NO Championships, NO huge accomplishments except being associated to Jeff Jarrett, the world champion at the time. (If being associated to him qualifies that this "Group" not be deleted then Phill Shatter having the NWA National Heavyweight title should be enough. He had the title "before" the group as Jeff Jarrett had the title "before.

Next we have 3Live Kru. Group who had a world champion within it. And did not have a long history, granted they did win the tag titles.

So my point is if this group "should" be deleted then there is plenty of "Tag Teams"/"Stables" that have never won a title that should be deleted at the same time. "Well there members made something of themselves" could be an arguments. The listing of the accomplishments of all 3 members answers that argument. Having title matches, tournament matches, and are currently the top heels for NWA Charlotte is enough to keep them ldeffinbaugh 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First: the Elite Guard should be deleted. I've been meaning to start a delete discussion but haven't. Second: The 3LK are notable because they have enough reliable sources out there to establish it, they won three championships in TNA, they existed for near two years, and were featured in multiple main storylines in TNA. The problem with this group is: there is not enough reliable third party sources. That establishes notability on here. You must have third party sources, or the group is not notable.--WillC 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TNA is infinitely more notable than NWA Charlotte, so an established tag team/stable in TNA is automatically going to be more notable than any team in NWA Charlotte. Nikki♥311 03:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an excuse to put over the three members when they have their own articles already. Way too soon for any notability to even be established let alone be there. Rick Doodle (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own NWA Charlotte and we established the name "III" just like any other tag team or group. They are 1 month old. I believe that the main notariety, right now, is that the mere mention of "III" in NWA Charlotte circles sparks an immediate recollection of the three individual members. The branding behind "III" is remarkable. It is smart, witty, memorable, easy to recall, fun to identify with, and all of the other items that make a brand stand out in professional wrestling. It is indeed rare when these brands emerge in the wrestling world. Ask 850 NWA Charlotte fans at one of our shows who is in "III", and they will all answer correctly. "III" will grow to become a known entity across the country because we have plans to have them tour nationally within other NWA peer promotions. "III" is a once-in-a-lifetime entity that comes along in professional wrestling. The last one was indeed "The 4 Horsemen." We ask you to please keep "III" and let it blossom into what Wikipedia user's and fans across the country will eventually want to read and learn about. And isn't that the true spirit of Wikipedia? Thank you. Jay Joyce, CEO, NWA Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.Nwacharlotte (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A group that is one month old needs some pretty remarkable championships and accomplishments to be considered for a separate article, no matter what the 850 NWA Charlotte fans think. Your argument does nothing to prove notability and is beyond biased (comparing them to the Four Horsemen, possibly the most important wrestling stable ever, is ridiculous). In any event, what they may eventually blossom into has no place on Wikipedia now (see WP:CRYSTAL). Also, please read WP:COI as to why the owner of the company shouldn't be promoting their own interests. Nikki♥311 03:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus wikipedia is not for advertising.--WillC 05:29, 9 June 2009 (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.