Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShoMiz (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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShoMiz[edit]

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

Team doesn't meet WP:GNG. They only teamed for a couple of months, and no significant coverage other than WP:ROUTINE match results. Can be covered in individuals' articles. Nikki♥311 03:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well sourced, it doesn't matter how long they teamed and during those four months (not a couple) they accomplished a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my nomination, it is sourced with WP:ROUTINE match results. None of the sources cited are "significant coverage in reliable third party sources". Nikki♥311 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ WWE's tag division has been incredibly week for the past decade or so, it's not uncommon for the to pair up two guys and for them to push them until they run out of steam. The rule of thumb that I consider when discussing notability is whether or not the team won any titles and whether or not they ever got an official team name... obviously this isn't always accurate, but it usually is. 3MB (professional wrestling), Tons of Funk and Team Rhodes Scholars had names but never experienced any success, they clearly fail GNG. Kofi Kingston and R-Truth were WWE Tag Team Champions and PWI tag team of the year but had no official team name and were clearly two guys grouped together and experienced success only because the tag roster was so thin at the time. Air Boom (which was cited in the original ShoMiz deletion discussion) would probably get my keep vote because they had a name and WWE tried to push them as an actual team, complete with a reign with the belts, before Evan Borne's wellness violations put an end to that. ShoMiz was thrown together so that DX and the Hart Dynasty could have someone to feud with. They barely have an official name because it's a portmanteau. Yea, they won the belts, but they're closer to Kofi Kingston and R-Truth than they are to Air Boom. There's nothing in this article that isn't in their individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - like Isarra said in the previous nomination, well-covered, won an apparently somewhat important thingy, and while WP:N doesn't entirely apply to this sort of thing there's probably enough here to merit keeping especially on account of the winningness. If anyone searches for 'showmiz' they'll probably be wanting this instead of an article on one or the other of the guys regardless.

But Kofi Kingston and R-Truth won two important things and they fail GNG. Also, there's not much reliable coverage out there beyond WP:ROUTINE match results. It's been six years since these guys were together, it's fair to say they didn't stand the test of time either.LM2000 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nomination. MPJ-US 00:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wasn't great (and the name was terrible), but it was close enough to something. Plus, I sort of believe in double jeopardy rules for articles. Unless there's a significantly new case against it or a glaring miscarriage of justice in the old nom, it had its day in court. And now it has a weak delete vote. The weakness means it sort of mattered. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ShoMiz was covered in a book:
1. Shields, Brian (2014). 30 Years of WrestleMania. London: Penguin Books. p. 183. ISBN 1465434208. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The book notes:
  The Miz and John Morrison were a successful tag team, winning both the WWE Tag Team Championship and World Tag Team Championship. The duo eventually split and The Miz found additional tag team gold by partnering with the World's Largest Athlete, Big Show. John Morrison and R-Truth looked to claim the tag championship for themselves. They'd had some non-title success against ShoMiz leading in to WrestleMania XXVI, so they felt confident that they could strike gold at the Showcase of the Immortals.
  The former partners started the match against each other. Morrison and R-Truth isolated The Miz from his partner, punishing the Awesome One with quick tags and aerial maneuvers. Morrison was set to end the match by delivering Starship Pain to a prone Miz, but Show pulled his partner out of the ring. The champions took control of the match when Big Show tagged in and used his massive size and strength against the challengers, including slamming R-Truth against the ring post. With Morrison and Miz battling inside the ring, Show made a blind tag of his partner that Morrison did not see. Morrison went to spring off the ropes, but instead received a Knockout Punch from the World's Largest Athlete. Show pinned Morrison, allowing ShoMiz to retain their championship.
Significant coverage in a book strongly indicates the subject has enduring notability. The book and the sources in the article allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for people to evaluate the source recently added -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yep, the source helps put it over the line for GNG. This book coverage trumps length of time, quality of name, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment struck delete vote, now Neutral.LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 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.