Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can-Am Connection


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can-Am Connection

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This tag team lasted 7-8 months and didn't accomplish much to warrant a separate article for the team. The relevant information is already part of Rick Martel and Tom Zenk. This article's existence is just a redundancy. Feed back  ☎ 21:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Feed  back  ☎ 22:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Assuming this nomination isn't a joke, the claim that this team is not notable is patently absurd. Notability is etablished in the article, but can easily be demonstrated further through this site: . Obviously, the article just needs a chance to grow. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with you. Generally speaking, the topic is notable, but per WP:N, 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. . I'm not saying that the subject is trivial, I'm just saying it doesn't warrant a standalone article. I personally think it's a duplicated redundant repetition of information which could all easily fit between the Tom Zenk and Rick Martel articles, but obviously I nominated it to AFD to discuss it. Feed  back  ☎ 09:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Didn't last as long as planned, but they had a solid push and gave birth to Strike Force. The way it ended killed a promising career. Could use a bit of work, but the team is notable, not just its parts, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PAGEDECIDE and because AfD is not cleanup and it shouldn't be used to decide how to merge or redirect content. The title is a likely search term even if the content was placed elsewhere, so it doesn't make sense to delete the page, which would turn it into a red link. Diego (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a place to discuss if "article titles" should be deleted, we delete articles themselves. As long as this article is deleted, a redirect page can take its place. It is not outside the scope of AFD to decide the title redirect to somewhere else. Feed  back  ☎ 23:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that, if the goal was to keep the title as a redirect, an AfD is not the best procedure; either a merge or a WP:Blank and redirect are more adequate. Diego (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that I blank and redirect and hope opposers didn't notice? I'm here to ask for a consensus. If most prefer to keep the article, then we'll keep it. If they don't, we'll get rid of it. Bold editing is not the solution here. Feed  back  ☎ 02:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A "blank and redirect" should leave an edit notice at the target article's talk page so that other editors can notice the edit. If you wanted to achieve a consensus prior to redirecting, you could do this at the original talk page. There's no need to seek for a full deletion, which has the unfortunate and unneeded effect of blocking the previous content away from people without admin permission; something that is clearly not needed for this article, as there's no benefit in doing so. Again, if the goal is signal the topic as relevant to Wikipedia (which is what a redirected title does), an AfD is not the right venue. This would be different if we had extra-soft deletions that didn't hide the article's history, but that's not the case right now. Diego (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2013 (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.