Deletion of Funk Masters of Wrestling

Comment: Meets  which per  states is our guideline for this. I believe the number of tag team championships won by the group would qualify under #3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:NSPORT)

Comment: Does not meet  per nominator. ''The issues'': This article has '''ZERO references''' towards notability. There are 26 references listed, from two different sources, that are primary. The 19 references from the source "Cagematch" do not contain any mention of the subject that I saw but do reference "Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling" or the names of individual "team members". I read over half way through the http://fmwwrestling.us/FMWHistory2.html FMW history2 reference before finding passing mention of the subject. While multiple primary reliable sources may be used to support content, an article relying on one source does not advance claims of otability|notability. This becomes more of a problem when the source of the references are close to, or invested in, the subject. This is compounded exponentially when the subject involves a  or information about living persons. The lead there states, ''"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."'', with the added, ''"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to '''material about living persons in other articles and on other pages''', including talk pages."''. The policy Wikipedia:No original research deals with |Primary, secondary and tertiary sources stating among other things "'''Do not''' base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."''. How is notability established? |If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This will also ensure compliance with the policies on no original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, remembering: erifiability#Notability|If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  and SPORT are guidelines. ''This page in a nutshell'' on both guidelines state: "...is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so the "subject" ''fails both of these guidelines'', especially by not complying with more than one relevant ''policy''. There is one more "issue" I ran across. Of the 26 references, some of them duplicates, the article is written from the single FMWHistory2 source because all the others generally just show matches with individual names (not including the subject) so there appears to be a lot of |synthesis. All of this leads me to consider that there is serious instances of Wikipedia:citation overkill|citation overkill to falsely present notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:BLP||WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:ENT||WP:NSPORT||WP:SYNTHESIS)