Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom

Air Boom

Air Boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely notable, only a tag team for almost 2 weeks ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the article has a multitude of reliable sources: PWTorch.com, f4wonline.com, slam.canoe.ca, cagematch.de, wwe.com and they are also the reigning WWE Tag Team Champions. Starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it ought to be kept. They've been together for two weeks but are champions and have got a tag-team name. Keep the article boys. Deely1 13:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be deleted. They are not notable, the dashing ones don't even have an article, the corre's took awhile to make and is still be contested to be deleted --ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah don't try to compare it like that. Wikipedia isn't about wrestling, it's an encyclopedia. Say a new football team was created, and in a week they won a championship. That would be up on wikipedia the next day, and this is the same. Deely1 13:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, a new football team is pretty rare, and winning a championship in their first year of existence is even more rare. So much so I don't think it's ever happened. New wrestling stables are created all the time, most aren't notable. So this comparison is like apples to oranges. But as I said below I think this one has enough coverage to establish notability. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Has enough third-party sources to establish notability, and I don't remember the last time they gave a team a name only to have them disband in a short time. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 21:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

They've been a team for a week! go to WP:PW's talk page to see a bigger conversation --ChristianandJericho (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to shift the conversation here, not the other way around Starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the discussion about whether the team is notable or not on WT:PW irrelevant here, but the length of how long they've been together is also irrelevant, what matters is if they have the sources to establish notability which I think they do. And yes I'd like to confirm what GaryColemanFan said below, I have volunteered to userfy this article to my sandbox should it be deleted, I would file it here. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I've already expressed my thoughts on why it should be kept above. Deely1 08:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Delete So many reasons why it should be deleted --ChristianandJericho (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Name them then mate. Deely1 08:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Already did, on the WP:PW talk page --ChristianandJericho (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but THIS is the deletion page and I'm afraid that if you want it deleted you will have to name them here. Deely1 08:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC

Okay,JeriShow, ShoMiz, and The Dashing Ones don't have one, and they've been a team longer than this. The Corre's page is about to be deleted, The Nexus page took like months to make, on top of that they've won ONE championship and teamed like FOUR times so they're not notable enough. --ChristianandJericho (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you not understood that comparing this article with others that haven't been deleted is taking you nowhere? If those article don't exist it's because nobody wrote them. Deely1 09:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JeriShow&diff=next&oldid=447720183

--ChristianandJericho (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Look mate, this website doesn't work like that. You should stop trying to compare this article to every other article you stumble across. Maybe Wikipedia just isn't the place for you? Deely1 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

the guy who's been indefently blocked before says I shouldn't be on wikipedia...? --ChristianandJericho (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering where I had heard "Deely" before. It's Kalajan, the three-times blocked sockpuppeteer. Not that you don't have a right to edit here, but you were indefinitely blocked for almost 2 years so we are all going to take your arguments with a grain of salt. Feedback ^☎ 16:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Feedback - I understand his past actions, hell I edited with him on the Simple English Wikipedia for a few months before he was banned there, so I can understand how you can be so ready to assume bad faith but please try to assume good faith. | @ChristianandJericho - "x doesn't exist, so this shouldn't" is not a valid deletion rationale. What you should be concerned with is if the article in question has the sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:GNG. Nothing else. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I thought you guys were already well aware of who I was. Firstly, ChristianandJericho, I think you should stop looking into other people's Wikipedia accounts, when on your user page you say you're a "Hardore member of Wikipedia Project: Pornography. Well, okay mate, well we've all got our hobbies, but perhaps you should stop looking into my past, and start thinking about your present and future. As to you Feedback, I'm going to ignore that comment, but just saying, you can take my comments with a pint of lager if you like, I'm still posting them. Thanks for your attention boys. Deely1 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep off the personal attacks guys. Starship.paint (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for it. i already said I was ignoring them. Deely1 01:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How are you "all for it" when you're the one who started it by saying I shouldn't be on wikipedia and just for your information WP:Porn interest me ONLY because I know about it not because I watch it (never watched porn in my life) --ChristianandJericho (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should just leave the whole subject mate... It's got nothing to do with this page. If you want to continue this discussion then please let it be on my talk page. Although before posting a comment on my page please think twice because I don't really want to hear it... Deely1 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Commentary - Please keep the personal attacks out of this and stay on topic. Assume good faith - though (s)he may have been previously blocked indefinitely, they're being unblocked is evidence that they have shown their ability to return to the community and contribute constructively. That said, with relation to JeriShow, it seems that the article was barely built with no sources at all - and arbitrarily redirected to Chris Jericho instead. You'll note, I say the redirect was arbitrary as not only could the article just have easily been redirected to Big Show. I also note that the group went on to be rather notable in their time teaming with each other - even winning multiple tag titles. But the article could just have easily been seen as being , or in the process of being built. It's not uncommon for users to create pages. Nor is it uncommon (as see saw with the Corre) to see users remake pages after they are deleted - leading to the salting of multiple articles. ShoMiz wasn't even built, it was just arbitrarily created and redirected to The Miz (according to it's history and log). Just pointing out the facts on the ground. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 06:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know much about wrestling websites, and which are reliable sources, but this article seems to easily pass Wikipedia:Gng#General notability guideline. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons stated above. Starship.paint (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, unless you produce evidence for a concerted discussion to delete the JeriShow article, it seems like Darrenhusted did the exact same thing as you did - he probably thought the article wasn't notable enough, so he changed everything to a redirect without consulting anyone. Look at it this way - instead of campaigning for the deletion of Air Boom, how about you campaign for the writing of the JeriShow article and all the rest of the articles as well? I'm sure you'll be able to find enough reliable sources to establish notability. That way everybody wins, don't you think? Starship.paint (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Deely1 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - This is the same reason why we don't have articles for other Tag Team Champions like Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit or Charlie Haas and Rico, if wrestling history has proven anything these teams are likely to be temporary if they're long term sustainability can proven it'll have no problem being recreated in the future, this is a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. Afro (Talk) 15:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  I have not seen anyone say they will be notable in the future, I have seen people, like myself, say they ahve the sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:N. Do you have anything to address this? As for your other argument about Angle and Benoit, Hass and Rico, well this falls, as GaryColemanFan said below, under WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is not a valid deletion rationale. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - The article fails basic notability criteria and most keeps are based on people assuming the subject matter will have future notability. Future notability is NOT a valid reason to keep an article. The appropriate action is to delete the article. If and only if the article meets notability criteria in the future, an article could be created in due time. Feedback ^☎ 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  Again I have seen no one here say they will be notable in the future, I have seen claims that they're notable now. As I said in my !vote, they have reliable third party sources that establish notability. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  Comment - I have yet to see a single sign of Crystal Balling or Speculation any where within this AfD process. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 06:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I am happy that it seems like a real discussion is finally taking place on this issue. For years, people have been arguing back and forth about notability for wrestling tag teams. I have repeatedly stated that WP:N is the deciding factor--are there reliable sources covering the topic with some depth? If so the article should stay. If not, the article should de deleted or userfied. I have found that many people object, creating their own notability criteria such as "They haven't been together long enough" or "They haven't done enough yet". I find that these are not valid reasons, as GNG overrides both of these arguments, which seem to be based on users' preferences rather than Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The other major argument against such articles is "If you make that article, you have to make an article for every other team that doesn't have an article". Obviously, that flies in the face of WP:OTHERSTUFF, which opposes deletion votes such as "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this". In this particular deletion discussion, it seems like most of the people pushing for deletion are choosing to cite this argument. However, I would hope that people who use this argument look at the other side of WP:OTHERSTUFF as well--the encyclopedia currently contains countless articles about villages in Pakistan, American high schools, and athletes who were released after playing a small fraction of a season at a professional level--many of which have less content and, arguably, less notability, than an article about a professional wrestling tag team in the largest promotion in the world. It is important to remember, however, that there is no minimum length requirement for a Wikipedia article. Some will remain a single sentence for years--that is irrelevant in deletion discussion, however. With the team in question here, as the promotion has given them the championship, they do have a claim to notability in that they will always be part of a list of champions. The article doesn't have a lot of content, but it has a complete overview of the team's existence and is sourced appropriately. Taking this all into consideration, I feel that we should Keep the article. Please note, however, that if the article is to be deleted, User:CRRaysHead90 has requested on the WT:PW page for the article to be moved to his userspace for the time being. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "They haven't done enough yet" is not a made-up argument. If most of the information is minor and is already stated in each of the wrestlers' articles, an article about the tag team would essentially be content forking. They have been champions for less than a week and don't deserve to have an article yet. Give the subject matter time. By creating and keeping this article, we are rushing an article with hardly any content. Feedback ^☎ 21:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • How do any of your comments relate to GNG? "They haven't done enough" - What is "enough"? The simple answer is doing something notable enough to garner discussion in reliable sources. They have. "information is minor" - POV and unrelated to WP:N. "already stated" - A specific article on the tag team gives more flexibility to give more depth, as it would clutter the individual articles. "don't deserve an article" - I have always opposed this sort of argument. Who's to say who deserves an article and who doesn't? Anything beyond WP:N (especially GNG) is POV. "Give the subject matter time" - The project has done this before--Does Beer Money deserve an article? Not yet. How about now? Not yet. How about now? Not yet. How about now? Not yet. Eventually, someone just created the article, and it stayed because it met GNG. "rushing an article" - Not a valid deletion argument. Lots of articles are created the same day the subject achieves notability. "hardly any content" - but enough to meet GNG, and, as I mentioned above, much more content than tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • As Gary said, Feedback, your argument is based on what you think is notable not what policy says is notable. It is not up to you to decide when a tag team has "been around long enough" or "done something notable", that is for the policies and reliable third-party sources to decide. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 04:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback:

• GNG: ...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...[and] is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic..."

• GNG sports: An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it significant coverage if ALL the reliable sources in the article are covering the same night and same title change? The other sources cover Kofi Kingston and Evan Bourne's profiles individually. Kofi Kingston is NOTABLE. Evan Bourne is NOTABLE. Their tag team is not because they have not done much and subsequently do not have significant coverage. They have 1 night's worth of coverage. How many articles about them have been released in reliable sources two days after Raw aired? Or three days? Four? A week? Would you consider that total number "significant coverage"? I wouldn't, because THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT. They won the titles, When they do, an article would be justified, but until then, this is simple content forking. Feedback ^☎ 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback as CRRays said earlier, it's not up to you to decide whether an article is notable or not. You can't just state "THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT" I'm afraid. We have plenty of reliable sources. Deely1 17:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources that are basically copies of each other and, not only that, but none of them solely talk about this article's subject. All of the sources are about the same Raw results taping that mention this tag team winning the title. That's it, nothing else. And it's up to ALL of us to decide wether the article is notable or not. It's not up to me alone, nor you alone. We are a consensus-building community so yes, I can put in my two cents if I want. I know you wouldn't understand much about consensus and guidelines, but try your best, ok? Feedback ^☎ 18:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)