Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As stated in the previous AfD, identical information is found in The Nexus (professional wrestling), The Corre, Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel. When the other AfD was closed over three years ago due to no consensus, there was an agreement that this information was redundant and that we needed to change something. We never did. I think we have better agreement on when tag teams warrant a separate article than we did then and can reassess this case. I believe this article is unnecessary as Slater and Gabriel never teamed outside of the larger factions. LM2000 (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would suggest that the "better agreement" is more a reflection of attrition--speaking for myself, I tend to avoid these discussions because of the sheer number some members of WP:PW put forward en masse as well as the endless arguments, as delete voters tend to get confrontational and want endless arguments instead of allowing closing administrators to weigh the arguments on their own. Easily enough reliable third-party sources to warrant a Wikipedia article. While I am fully aware that an argument about content forking will be invoked, the guideline says that it is okay for spin-off articles to be created to provide more detailed information about specific aspects of a topic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Like in the deletion discussion for Air Boom, this team does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources in the article are from a primary source (WWE.com) or WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 04:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These two are 3 time wwe tag team champions, there is no reason to delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Their three championship reigns are detailed in four other articles.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - they don't need it, all the information could be included in the nexus and corre pages as a separate section. Browndog91 18:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Corre and The Nexus article can explain their partnership just as well since that's the only time they were an actual tema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:8897:1054:f8e8:79c4 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No distinct notability as a team. The individual memebers, and the factions they were part of, yes, but these two specifically as a team, no. oknazevad (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I would buy this as notable if it were about the tag team of Dick Slater and Peter Gabriel (and I'd pay money to see that!). The keep voters make the same arguments that have been made in other AFDs, often the same people making the same argument, namely that the mere existence of citations pointing to reliable sources = evidence of notability. In other words, as far as they're concerned, the agenda of their cherry-picked sources automatically becomes our agenda and it matters little or none if that agenda extends to providing comprehensive coverage of what's notable about the topic of professional wrestling. There are simply far too many examples of what's wrong with that approach, so I won't dwell on such. However, one which stood out is the fact that we have Category:American Wrestling Association teams and stables which is reasonably well-populated, but no article on The High Flyers. Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell teamed together and appeared on the top or middle of the card for close to a decade and a half, including many years in which the AWA regularly appeared in 15–20,000-seat arenas. I suppose none of that matters when compared with every little present-day fleeting trending topic mentioned by present-day fanboy news sites. Likewise, no article on The Crush Gals, who were absolutely freaking huge at the height of their popularity, while we do have an article on The Jumping Bomb Angels, who were nowhere near as big a deal but made a small handful of appearances on WWF television. Like I said, I could go on forever about that but would rather not. To sum it up, this approach begs the question: which part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" requires further debate/discussion or deserves to be disregarded? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:09, 24 September 2016 (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.