Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom


 * 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. Jayron  32  19:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Air Boom

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Barely notable, only a tag team for almost 2 weeks ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing this AfD as I have thought about it and decided it is notable FOR NOW --ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa. What is this "for now" nonsense? It is very clear in policy that notability is not temporary. If this AFD is going to close, let it be for a valid reason like a "Keep consensus". The original nominator isn't the only one who has issue with the article's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Feed  back  ☎ 01:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok fine Keep consensus I feel that Air Boom is indeed notable after so many sources have been included --ChristianandJericho (talk) 01:50, 6 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. Deely  1  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. Deely  1  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.  CRRays Head90  | Another way... 01:30, 2 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.  CRRays Head90  | 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.  CRRays Head90  | 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.  CRRays Head90  | Another way... 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've already expressed my thoughts on why it should be kept above. Deely  1  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. Deely  1  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. Deely  1  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. Deely  1  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? Deely  1  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. Feed  back  ☎ 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.  CRRays  Head90  | 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. Deely  1  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. Deely  1  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... Deely  1  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 Under Construction, 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 Gng. 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. Deely  1  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.  CRRays Head90  | 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. Feed  back  ☎ 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.  CRRays Head90  | 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. Feed  back  ☎ 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.  CRRays Head90  | Another way...</b> 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. Feed  back  ☎ 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. Deely  1  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? Feed  back  ☎ 18:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you want me to take that comment? Because they way I see it, you're practically insulting me and not only that, you're doing it on an AfD page that has nothing to do with the matter. Grow up mate. Deely  1  18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough, Deely, let it go. @ Feedback - You're bordering incivility and personal attacks. Chill man, this article is nothing to let that happen about. Also please stop shouting. As for the content of your argument, you right the links talk about routine wrestling coverage. But that's how 9 out of 10 wrestling sources work, they hardly ever talk about some one outside the main event in individual sources. If that's your argument maybe we should get rid of oh, say Nexus, about 80% of it's sources is routine wrestling coverage. I'm not pulling an WP:OTHERSTUFF but I am trying to prove to you that's how sourcing in wrestling works. The article is reliably sourced. The team has a claim to notability. Your argument is essentially boiling down to "I don't like it so it's not notable." And after reading the content forking guideline, I think you have it wrong based on this. But you're also right this is a consensus building community. However, those consensuses are to be made based on Wikipedia policy. I've seen it happen before, especially to the wrestling project, the consensus is an article should be kept or deleted, based on the situation, and the opposite happens because the consensus is not based in policy. Essentially, if the consensus is not based in policy, an admin will 9 times out of 10 ignore the consensus and delete based on policy. In short, if you have proof they're not notable based on policy, please city some. If not, I don't see much policy merit in your argument for deletion. <b style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif; text-shadow:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em #9eceee; color: #fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | Another way...</b> 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not once have I been uncivil so stop the accusations please. As for the content forking guideline, that's true, some information will appear in related topics, but every single bit of information in this article appears in Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston. It's not the subject's fault, it's just the face that it has done nothing to stand out from other than just being a random pairing of Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston. They have as much reliable coverage as does a random pairing of Big Show and Triple H or the random pairing of Johnny Nitro and Kenny Dykstra. WP:GNG states clearly that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. This is one of those cases where the subject does not warrant its own article due to not being active enough to have reliable sources speak about them directly. And who said I didn't like the tag team? I like them, WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. I just know for a fact that every bit of information in this article fits inside Kofi Kingston and Evan Bourne, and there is absolutely no reason why this subject should have its own article. Feed  back  ☎ 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Feedback firstly let's not refer to Deely's past any more, okay? Now the whole purpose of writing an article for a tag team is so that there is more focus on the tag team itself than individual articles would focus on. Otherwise there wouldn't be any tag team/stable article if everything was covered in individual articles! And if you read the tag team and individual articles you'll see that it's true, that the tag team page actually expands on content regarding the tag team (how they earned their title shot, how they were named) while the individual articles just say they won the titles and they were named. So I think your argument about "every single bit of information" being in the individual articles is rendered invalid. Oh, and the other argument about this article on all the reliable sources talking about the same event of them winning the title? Nope, because I've got multiple sources backing up three events, how they earned #1 contendership, how they won the title, and how they had their first title defense. So your "one event" argument is invalid as well. Starship.paint (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: - This template is here for a reason.  ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  08:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Er... what do you mean? Did I do something wrong while editing the article? Starship.paint (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. What I am saying is that the template is there to redirect users to further details on a subject. See Wade Barrett's article for an example. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the nominator has dropped his objections, I would still like to see this AfD continue and reach a consensus, as this is an issue that has been discussed many times in recent years. Rather that leave the discussion half-way, I am hoping that we can reach an actual decision on creating pages for other tag team champions. It would be much more helpful to be able to point to this as a consensus (either for or against) rather than have the constant "Now?" "No, not yet." "Now?" "Not yet." discussions for years to come. In addition, I am concerned about the "FOR NOW" comment, as I do not believe that an article's subject can lose its notability, and I dont want to come back to this same discussion in the near future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Gary. We need to have a discussion and set a precedent. It may not be law, but it's needed to help in future discussions.<b style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif; text-shadow:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em #9eceee; color: #fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | Another way...</b> 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with the both of you. Let's get to a consensus. Deely  1  19:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the premature closure. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  01:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I reopened it. A nominator changing his mind is not a valid reason to close a discussion. To me it seems that the consensus is leaning towards a Keep which I think is a big mistake. All articles should be elaborate and there's no way to elaborate further on this subject due to the subject's little accomplishments. Everyone keeps mentioning that just because it has significant coverage, it deserves an article. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage establishes only a presumption and not a guarantee that a subject warrants an article. This is because a subject might not warrant a stand-alone article and instead deserves to be part of a much broader subject. In this case, the tag team's very very very short history deserves to be mentioned in sections in both the Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston articles as well as mentioned in the WWE Tag Team Championship and List of WWE Tag Team Champions article. There is no need for an article on the tag team's short history to exist. If they exist for a longer time, I have absolutely no opposition for their history to be recorded into a much more focused article. But for now, what is there to focus on? Three weeks and a total of about 25-30 minutes of airtime? Who's to say they won't lose the title to Truth and Miz and never tag team again? Let's give them time to see if they are more than just a random pairing. I promise it's the best solution. Feed back  ☎ 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that they might well lose the championships is WP:CRYSTAL mate. Everyone else agrees that the article should be kept so let's just get this over with. -- Deely 1  02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't focus on the "short" (as you claim) history. Tue they've been teaming for 2-3 weeks but we've already got five pieces of information backed up with references in the history section itself. Like I said, the existence of a tag team article allows for more elaboration for the tag team's exploits compared to the individual articles. And this is true, we did elaborate on the tag team's exploits here. This is why we choose to keep this tag team article. Starship.paint (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are confusing elaborate with length? As GaryColemanFan has said "there is no minimum length requirement for a Wikipedia article. Some will remain a single sentence for years--that is irrelevant in deletion discussion" The article is short, yes, but their achievements are elaborated on. Starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Feedback, what you don't seem to get is there is not a time limit or length limit on whether something is notable enough for it's own article. It is reliably sourced. It lengthened to it's maximum length at the moment and they're being pushed as a real tag team on WWE TV. I believe they are notable and the sources back it up. <b style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif; text-shadow:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em #9eceee; color: #fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | Another way...</b> 02:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it, I know it, and we have plenty of reliable sources to back us up. -- Deely 1  02:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Every single one of the arguments for notability are about the sources, but WP:GNG clearly states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." So the sources have given us a presumption. Okay. Lets reach a consensus focusing on OTHER facts. Is there any other claim to notability? I don't see any. They are a short-lived tag team who have been together for three weeks with only about 25-30 minutes of total television time. Like GNG says, putting reliable sources aside, I don't see any other reason to keep this article. Feed back  ☎ 04:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're throwing in sources, that establishes a presumption. And you're throwing in the amount of time they've been together and the fact that "You don't think they're notable enough". Really? -- Deely 1  07:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already argued - even by putting reliable sources aside, a tag team article allows for more elaboration than the individual articles. There's no need to elaborate on how "Air Boom" was named through Twitter in Evan Bourne's individual page. But that information fits perfectly in the tag team page. The individual article might not need to establish how Air Boom became #1 contenders, but the tag team article can. Starship.paint (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How they became #1 Contenders? That sounds like trivial week-by-week information which WP:PW's MoS frowns upon. Here's a rundown of the article: "Kofi and Evan teamed up. They became #1 Contenders on Raw. They won the titles. They were named Air Boom. They are funny." What a compelling read, right? No, not right. It's trivial, it's unnecessary and the tag team only needs a small mention in the individual articles. If it was a bigger part of each of their careers, it might be more important. We can't speculate and assume this is an important part of their careers and will be so for some time. They could disband at Night of Champions, maybe tomorrow, maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years; We don't know. And because we don't know, we can only consider the current facts.
 * What I'm saying is, if Air Boom DISBANDS tomorrow, does their history up until right now at this exact moment deserve an article? I can't help but answer no. Feed  back  ☎ 12:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Yeah, no need to delete this. And also, The Corre should be added here (in English Wikipedia). They won the Tag team titles and the Intercontinental Championships. As for Air Boom, all significant reasons have already been stated. It is said on an episode of Super SmackDown in an interview with Matt Striker. ;) Draven (º,;;,º) Corvis  (chat) 17:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * InToronto1125, could you please explain your decision? Draven Corvis, could you just paste your arguments on the talk page here in case someone doesn't recognize your arguments as part of the AfD process?Starship.paint (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah dude explain.-- Deely 1  00:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I declined the speedy delete on this article and renamed as it claimed that they won the competition, a claim of importance. Also there are heaps of references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm going to ignore the ridiculous amount of sources for such a short article - it seems that they're just there so the article won't be deleted. What is important is if the team is notable enough to have their own article. Most recent WWE tag champions have essentially been two singles guys stuck together. And while this seems to be the case with this team, it looks like WWE has made an effort to promote these guys as one unit, establishing a team name early on and using it from the outset. If they break up really soon and there isn't much to add to the article in the near future, you might have a case for deletion, but at the moment I think the team is notable enough for their own article. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.