Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins


 * 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   no consensus. After changes, there appears to be no consensus to delete. v/r - TP 01:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

While the individuals in this tag team may be notable, the references are for the individuals, not the pair AS a pair, thus the subject matter fails general notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I looked through the sources and couldn't believe what a laughably poor job someone did of sourcing this article.  I really wanted to piss my pants laughing when I saw that the WWE profiles on Reks and Hawkins actually point to the WWE profiles of Chris Jericho and The Big Show.  Which leads me to a comment, see below:

Comment - Evidently, one or more editors active on WP:PW received divine inspiration of the great need (as in the old Internet in-joke, "I see a great need") to create one article after another on current WWE tag teams. Based upon the erroneous linking referenced above, articles are being created by taking another article as a template and just copying everything over. It would appear the philosophy inherent is that their favorite wrestling websites will in time provide the necessary sources. I contend that the vast majority of these new articles fail the ten-year test, that without common sense intervening this problem will continue to manifest itself over and over again, and that these editors and WP:PW as a whole are failing to recognize tag teams which were not only very notable in their era, but remain historically significant today. Let me throw out a few names and tell me if you see any articles on these teams: All of the teams I mentioned above have passed the ten-year test. The most egregious examples, IMO, follow below: In summary, like I mention above, we will continue to see needless AFDs on needless articles until someone wakes up. The usual approach has been for other editors to tell me "If you care enough about it, then that's your job, not mine." I haven't really been that active with pro wrestling articles; I may have other things I wish to work on. The impression I get from many who work primarily or exclusively on pro wrestling articles is that they treat this like a parallel universe form of video gaming, where barnstars and GA nominations and the like is all that matters. Ask them where their priorities are at before you ask that of me.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment I request that this AfD does not conclude and close before I add more reliable sources in a few hours and brush up the article. Thanks. Starship.paint (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Larry Hennig and Harley Race
 * Dick Murdoch and Dusty Rhodes (Texas Outlaws is an article about a soccer team, I think. Since that article is just a bunch of tables and lacks prose, I really can't tell.)
 * The Funks (just Dory and Terry together would suffice, not necessarily including the 1980s WWF gimmick version with Jesse Barr)
 * The Briscos (that would be Jack and Jerry, not the Briscoe Brothers)
 * Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell (like with the previous example, High Flyers refers to something else)
 * Black Gordman and Goliath - Not only one of the top tag teams of their day, but still fondly remembered today. Neither individual has an article, let alone the tag team, as evidenced by the redlinks.
 * The Hollywood Blonds - This article does exist. However, the original, legendary and far more notable tag team of Jerry Brown and Buddy Roberts, known as the Hollywood BLONDES, are being used merely as a coatrack to refer to the short-lived and directly derivative (by virtue of Bill Watts being the booker who created both teams) latter-day incarnation of Steve Austin and Brian Pillman.  The claim to greater notability of Austin and Pillman on Wikipedia is based solely on greater television exposure, which is actually a somewhat dubious claim if you cared to dig up the respective television ratings statistics.  The problem is that that might require something approaching real work.  Obviously, parroting one's favored sources is an easier route to take.
 * Keep per nom's first statement. If A and B are notable, it's potentially reasonable to cover them as a pair, and not a problem with our notability guidelines.  If you disagree, why don't you just split this article?  Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Strawman argument. And the individuals already have individual articles that individually have to demonstrate that they pass the criteria for notability, so there is nothing to split.  This article is about the tag team itself.  Unless you can provide references on the actual tag team, or point to a specific criteria that this passes, it fails the verification requirement of our general notability guidelines.  You can find plenty on the individuals, you find nothing from reliable sources on the tag team itself.   Dennis Brown (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care how absurd an argument is: if you make it, I'm allowed to address it, and an argument you make is not a straw man. Don't make arguments in favor of keeping an article if you want it to be deleted.  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one said you couldn't address it. If there is a fallacy or absurdity in your argument (see WP:ATA) then I have the same right to point that out.  My point stands, the premise of your argument is not only flawed, but is well covered in the guidelines here.  Just because two persons have individual articles, doesn't mean a combined article is appropriate.  Why not Obama and Hitler?  Charles Manson and Mother Theresa?  Unless the pairing itself is demonstrated notable as a pair, it fails WP:N, regardless of now notable the individuals are. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll make this shorter than the other comment. It appears that at some point recently, one or more editors decided that as soon as the WWE made mention of a team on their website, that it was necessary to immediately create an article on the team.  Near as I can tell, this was for no real reason other than to facilitate linking or future linking to various templates, mostly of tag team championships.  I'm sure some of us have better things to do on here than deal with a series of AFDs for articles whose reasoning for creation is questionable in the first place.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to spend most of my time saving articles worth saving, but I can always make time to help remove articles that don't belong here. Both help Wikipedia as they raise the overall quality.  Dennis Brown (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok done. I've added 10 references to the article from reliable sources. Every single one of the references do not talk about Reks and Hawkins as individuals, but rather as a pair. I believe this refutes Dennis Brown and Lajbi's grievances on the article. I invite them to reconsider their stance in light of new sources. My vote is Keep. Starship.paint (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment to closing admin and Starship.paint - I went through the changes Starship.paint made, removed the bad citations (twitter and facebook) and broken cites, and would say the article is significantly better than it was when we first started. Imho, it is a borderline case and could go either way.  The references are mainly primary sources and weaker wp:rs sources, which doesn't mean they aren't true, just weak, since the main sources being used to call them notable are, basically, their employers.  But there are some other cites, weak but they exist.  I do appreciate the fact that instead of giving lame rationales, you put your money where your mouth is and actually worked on the article.  That said, I could understand if the closing admin kept, since the facts in the article are true, the individuals are notable, and the tag team due is ongoing and at least borderline notable.  I'm much more neutral about the issue than at the start of the AFD.  Dennis Brown (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * About the sources I added - SLAM! Wrestling, PWInsider, PWTorch, Wrestleview, these are the most reliable third-party wrestling sources out there that cover wrestling events regularly... You would be hard pressed to find better sources for wrestling really. Starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you should reinstate the Twitter reference. It was Curt Hawkins' twitter naming one of his moves. Isn't that reliable enough? Starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with a twitter reference is twofold: One, you can never be sure it is who they say it is, as Twitter accounts are not vetted, you don't have to show an ID to get one.  I can start one called Elvis Presley, and swear that I am Elvis, I'm alive, and a goat rancher in Alaska.  We wouldn't allow that in the article on Elvis (yes, extreme, but the point is the same).  This means it is unreliable as a source, via WP:RS.  The second problem, is that it would be a primary source even if you knew it was him.  That is ok, but primary sources can be used to show interesting stuff but never to show notability, which is the current reason we are here, so it is moot for this AFD anyway.  Even if not at AFD, it is unlikely that this type of citation would be acceptable because of point 1. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment as I was directed here to see the recent changes of the article and AfD I express my thoughts a bit longer. I still thing a duo of this sort isn't notable just because their members are and events involving them have media coverage. Let me draw you an easy example. As you can see on my profile I mainly edit tennis articles. I don't know how many of you are into tennis but to cut things short there are singles tennis and doubles tennis. In singles Novak Djokovic is the first in the world Rafael Nadal is the second. Last year it was vice versa. The thing is they paired up for a doubles match in the 2010 Rogers Cup – Men's Doubles. The thing was a real media hype considering they are rivals. Now that doesn't mean they deserve their own Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal page. While Bob and Mike Bryan do so (because they won major tournaments and currently the best in the world in doubles). Translating this into WWe language these guys should win a tag team title or be a main eventer in a major show at least! Despite all efforts here it's still a no-go.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet another comment - I don't wish to belabor the point, as abundant evidence exists in various talk pages that it's being made largely to a hostile audience. However, popular wrestling websites commonly held out as "reliable sources" push a certain point of view in order to attract readers who believe in that point of view. That's what in turn attracts advertisers. When contributors make a habit of parroting that content on Wikipedia, they tend to forget that Wikipedia lacks advertising for a reason, and part of that reason is to prevent the presentation of content being hijacked by certain points of view. Unfortunately, that's exactly what has happened here, thanks to the regulars in WP:PW and their "path of least resistance" approach. WikiProjects promote and enable undue weight, IMO, but that's another argument for another time. Persons with any knowledge of pro wrestling beyond what they see on their favorite weekly cable television program or on pay-per-view are likely to walk away with the impression of Wikipedia resembling something not unlike cultural depictions of The Boy in the Plastic Bubble based upon the philsophy inherent here. Using press release-like information found on wwe.com (or any other website, for that matter) as a guide in shaping the content of the encyclopedia is just beyond bogus. That's exactly what I see not only with this article, but most of the recent push to create articles for WWE tag teams.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:25, 4 November 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.