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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Love Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable tag team as of yet. Nikki311 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Negative): There are absolutely no reliable sources for attribution of their meeting the WP:BIO notability criteria ... by definition, links to their MySpace pages and biographies on their employer's website do not qualify as WP:RS. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm also very unsure about this, but I will point out that -- while biographies from the TNA website are not reliable sources in a strict sense -- they do confer a level of notability. The company is involved in cable television production, so those listed as performers on the website are known to be on cable television. (This isn't much, but it is far superior to the level of coverage these ladies had during a spate of previous article attempts.) Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I'll grant that it's better coverage, however, I still consider an employer's website (regardless of how much of a reliable source it may be) to be a primary source, and WP:BIO#Basic criteria explicitly requires "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the editor may have been saying that being a performer for TNA Wrestling gives some level of inherent notability due to their presence on television and Pay-Per-View, and that their profiles are proof of their employment (and therefore their notability). I see Xoloz's point completely, and if Velvet Love Entertainment had their own team profile on said website then I might be more interested in keeping the article. But they don't, and I'm not. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: I won't deny that an employer's website is OK for verification of some facts (e.g. date/place of birth, actual employment there, etc.), but they do not satisfy "has been the subject of published secondary source material" ... I view "known to be on cable television" (in itself) as noteriety, not notability, which (in the case of television "celebrities") is a given ... that's all I'm saying. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now due to concerns about notability (is there anything in this article that could not be used in the individual subject's pages? Oh yes - one of them doesn't even have a page!). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom iMatthew (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a tag team - not notable. Individual articles would be better. GetDumb 21:05, 16 January 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.