Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Males
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 or merge, but not delete. Such discussions belong on the article talk page, not AfD. kurykh 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The American Males (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No reliable sources appear to establish the notability of this tag team. The sources on the article are from websites with no indication of any reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. PROD removed under the theory that they were the tag team champions, but being given a fake title in a scripted fight does not strike me as establishing notability. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - "theory that they were tag team champions" doesn't strike me as an unbiased view, having a swipe at me for removing the prod for some obscure reason. As for "fake title in a scripted fight" seems to be plenty good for every single Wrestling title article on here, even the Feature List ones. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your stated reason for removing the PROD tag was I see sources and they've held the WCW world tag title, they're notable enough for Wikipedia. I addressed the sourcing issue in the nomination. Sorry that you feel slighted by my reiteration of your other reason but I believe it was accurate. If other wrestling champion articles are also not independently notable then they too should be deleted, not used as an excuse to keep this article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge,the "team itself" doesn't seem to be a notable one. If every team that held a tag championship had an individual article, there would be pages for Shawn Michaels and John Cena, Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie, Kane and Big Show, etc. In fact, a lot of those articles were created and deleted by either prod or AfD. Therefore, there has to be a different criterion for notability for teams. In my opinion, a notable long-range storyline central to the company, several tag team titles, existence in several companies, or reliable third party sources would be good place to start. Unfortunately, this team has none of that. Therefore, because the individuals in the team are definitely notable (and neither have particularly a long article), I suggest merging the information into both articles with a redirect to either of them. Nikki♥311 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern with a merge is that the information would still not be supported by reliable sources. Should the information end up merged despite that, does the GFDL allow for merger to two articles and then a redirect to a third? I would suggest List of WCW Tag Team Champions#List of individual reigns as a possible redirect target. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree Nikki, there is no "different criterion" for tag teams, it's all the same: WP:Notability, that's where it starts and ends. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant (and what I still stand by) is that having a championship is not enough to satisfy notability for a tag team to have a separate article rather than just being mentioned in the members' articles. As I stated above, having reliable third party sources would prove notability, which the article now has, so I change my opinion to keep. Nikki♥311 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- Like Nikki stated, it would be best to merge the info into the respective articles and redirect it to either male.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This was a notable team that competed exclusively together, under a team name, for an extended period of time. As such, they are more notable than any of the random pairings that various promotions have thrown together. I have added a bit to the article, and more information remains to be added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established by independent reliable sources that substantively cover the subject. It is not fame, nor is it popularity, nor is it achievement. Nor is it established by how long the team worked together or if the pairing had a team name. Where are the reliable sources? Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Reliable sources have been provided. Some unproven sources are still present, but references #2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 19 fit the definition of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Team is notable. Known widely amoung the wrestling community. They teamed in WCW, a company where reliable sources or sourceds in general are hard to find for PPVs, Nitro, or even Thunder. If sources is all that establish notbility then we should delete everything WCW, WWF, or ECW because reliable written sources are hard to come by.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Known widely among the wrestling community" is not the standard for notability. The team is notable per WP guidelines if and only if reliable sources exist for it. If reliable sources do not exist then per WP:N the article should not exist. If other articles suffer from the same sourcing problems then they should also be deleted. There is no exception to WP:RS for wrestling. Otto4711 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A written source isn't needed to source the article. The article can always be sourced with Cite episode.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I find it weird that you are replying to everyone's comments that oppose, as if you don't want it deleted because of nobility, instead you seem to have another reason.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, it just needs one or two reliable sources to remain an article and only "contentious" material needs to be fully sourced, so it's not like every single little detail has to be sourced in order for the article to stay. And how about you let people speak their opinion instead of hammering away at any and all comments that don't agree with you? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, indeed, nine reliable sources have now been provided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could understand Otto's nomination, but MPJ-DK has sourced nearly every sentence. Also Otto's "fake title in a scripted fight" betrays an anti-wrestling agenda. Should we delete all wrestling articles about anyone since 1904? As the vast majority have been worked since then. The subject matter aside this meets WP:N easily. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I can only take credit for 1 source, the rest is someone else's work - credit where it's due ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An anti-wrestling agenda? Spare me. I could almost literally not care less about professional wrestling, your bad faith accusations to the contrary. The article was nominated not because it has anything to do with wrestling but because it was a piece of shit. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is well sourced, they teamed for over a year, won the WCW World Tag Team Championship. They may not be one of the most notable teams in history, but they are notable enough to have an article. TJ Spyke 16:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep It's clear your not working as an unbiased party. Otto4711: The argument for deletion: "..being given a fake title in a scripted fight does not strike me as establishing notability." is pure nonsense which is not covered in any deletion requirement. Something being scripted or faked is largely irrelevant to whether something has established notability or not. Under that logic all things fiction and faked should be deleted from Wikipedia (Milli Vanilli to AFD anyone?). Professional wrestling articles are mostly going to have references that are specifically written about professional wrestling and are probably not going to be referenced by major media outlets, which seems to be your issue, but i digress. This tag team is notable as established by the references provided in the articles. — Moe ε 17:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> The argument made in removing the PROD was that they won a tag team title. Wrestling is not real. It is scripted. It is not like boxing or MMA or the Olympics, where absent shenanigans titles are awarded based on real competition. Wrestling titles are given at the whim of the story editor. Thus, "winning" a non-competitive (i.e. "fake") title in a bout with a pre-determined outcome (i.e. "scripted") does not establish the notability of a tag team. Arguing in favor of the notability of a tag team on the basis of their "winning" a title illustrates that those making the argument dlack the most basic of understanding of our notability guideline. That's all I'm saying. Extrapolating that to all fiction or all hoaxes (I believe there may have been one or two stories in the mainstream press about Milli Vanilli, for example) is a ridiculously bizarre and foolish misreading of my argument. Apparently the news that wrestling titles are fake and scripted is something of a panty-bunching revelation to some of my fellow editors. Sorry to pop your balloons, wrestling fans. If you choose to believe that my pointing out that wrestling is fake and scripted means I'm "biased" against pro wrestling, feel free to live with your ignorance. It would be nice if you would assume good faith but I suppose that's too much to ask for. Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, professional wrestling being scripted does not alter its notability. The promotion they won the tag team titles in was one of the most notable promotions in professional wrestling history, probably second only to WWE. Your not biased because you know its scripted, your biased because your nomination was worded as trying to delete on the basis of the titles they won are irrelevant, which they are not. Those who follow professional wrestling here know its scripted and thank you for trying to spare us, unfortunately you decided to take the road of being a dick while trying to do so. — Moe ε 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Moe said, what does wrestling being fake have to do with this? Fine, then winning an Oscar or Emmy award doesn't count for squat in making an actor notable because acting is fake and it's a small group of people deciding who to give the awards to. TJ Spyke 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg you, before trying to be clever again, read a WP policy or two. If the Oscars were considered fake and did not get worldwide media attention, in other words, RELIABLE SOURCES, then yes, they should not have WP articles. Is the concept of reliable sources really that hard for you to understand? Is there some particular aspect of it that baffles you? Because we may be able to arrange some sort of "Reliable sources for Dummies" thing for you if it's that far out for you. Otto4711 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've all read the policies, we get them and we sourced according to them. What rubs people the wrong way is not you quoting policies but the condescending tone you use when talking about the subject matter. And before you claim innocence just save it, talking to the members of WP:PW like they don't actually know that wrestling is predetermined is condescending, as is your general tone through out this entire debate. I also notice that you keep debating the subject matter and not the fact that it now actually is in accordance with the rule you keep quoting as an argument to delete it. Or maybe you agree it's a keeper and now engage in a purely philosophical debate on reliable sources on Wikipedia?? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg you, before trying to be clever again, read a WP policy or two. If the Oscars were considered fake and did not get worldwide media attention, in other words, RELIABLE SOURCES, then yes, they should not have WP articles. Is the concept of reliable sources really that hard for you to understand? Is there some particular aspect of it that baffles you? Because we may be able to arrange some sort of "Reliable sources for Dummies" thing for you if it's that far out for you. Otto4711 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the sources seem to indeed be reliable they do not seem to make the team notable. The info in the article does not show me why this team is notable enough for its own page. While winning the belts is perhaps notable, if this is a main argument for notability than the quality of that championship should be considered. They only had the titles for a week and two of the three teams mentioned in that week, Harlem Heat & Nasty Boys, are far more notable. The titles are notable, but every single title reign is not necessarily notable enough for an article on a stand alone basis. This team was only part of Bagwell's career and it does not seem that it was either the most successful, nor with the most notable partner. Antol's article alone is quite brief and I think if the american male info was merged with both it would increase the quality of each wrestler's article more than any gain as a seperate article.MephYazata (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep I am in agreement with the previous statements in favor of keeping this article. The nominator's view that the article is a "piece of shit" is not enough to warrant its deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:11, 4 April 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.