Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Yolo County Tag Team Championship

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. This discussion is a bit difficult to process as so much of it revolves around the actions of specific editors and around the question of whether this is a joke, none of which are germane to the scope of a deletion discussion where we are trying to answer the question of whether an article/page should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. On this front, most arguments are in favour of deletion for lack of notability and there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary posted, so delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Yolo County Tag Team Championship

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No notable tag team title. The title is a joke, just cardboard belts which were created for a storyline. Sources are

WP:ROUTINE ([1]) since are reports of the event. It was "created" yesterday and it's unknown if the promotion will keep the joke or is just one day thing. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established. Its made one appearance and nothing stating its officially recognized. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep part of the deletion argument is Original Research, no one has provided a Reliable Source stating that this was a joke. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While assuming good faith i do want to point out that the AFD nominator has removed portions of thr article that were well sourced, suspicious that sources to help put the championship in context was removed before the AFD. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed no notable stuff. For example, the reception is just "the public said YOLO" and has no relationship with the 24/7 title. Other things are OR, like "it's part of a local promotion" or "the history of the title is unknown before 2019". The source in the table doesn't mention the title, just HM defeated two jobbers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said "important context", comparing it to the last championship introduction, which was met with boos and jeers, while this had he crowd behind the title, with sources, provides context for the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @
      WP:GAMING when it comes to nominating for deletion: Removing passable content from the article before nominating for deletion so that the result can go in his favor. I don't think you did that in bad faith, but it was a little underhanded. Just be careful okay? :) DrewieStewie (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - For me, the article doesn't meet
        WP:TOOSOON. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        My responses from the same message posted on my talk page below in top down order. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        you ASSUME they are from Yolo, do you have a source for that? Sounds like an OR argument to me.
        
        Why is it introduced? Context my dear HHH. Is it not totally acceptable to compare the reception of "X-Men Dark Phoenix" to previous X-Men movies? I think that's legit and happens all over Wikipedia, why can one championship introduction be compared to the previous one to provide some context for anyone not familiar with the subject? Seems like it's Wikipedia's duty to educate, just trying to do my part. In addition "I don't understand" is not a good argument to remove content, I'd have to blank out a ton of articles I do not understand.
        
        The Yolo Championship change was reported on by foreign sources, ergo it "received international coverage" - stated, sourced, FACT.
        
        The show was the top rated show in the timeslot, the Yolo championship was part of the show. Nowhere does it state a "keypoint" so pleases keep your own interpretations out of this please.
        
        No one (but you) have stated "the Yolo titles are huge deal", so that's not an argument that actually holds water. If you want to make an article on a jobber I am not stopping you, I am however stopping you from erroneously trying to undermine this article. Considering you nominated it and then tried to gut it of content it's hard to assuming good faith if your edits.
        
        So ratings had been dropping, but kept even with the previous week's ratings so that's better than them keep dropping, the angle was one of the differences compared to the previous weeks. And the show was indeed the top rated show. So I think "Huge lie" is your personal interpretation of this.

- - - - In the interest of any future AFD closer you should know that HHH Pedrigree is engaged in an edit war on this article by consantly removing well sourced material from the article. I could assume good faith initially, but 2 quick reverts just now is nothing more than distruptive editing, not sure if he's trying to make his AFD case stronger or what, but it's not really a good look. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I removed a section which is a huge interpretation of sources and, at some points' it's a lie. All my edits are explained here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        And I disagree with your interpretation of the edits, so I guess we're at a stalemate here, but since I won't edit war the sections are removed and no one here can read them for themselves and see if it helps them make up their minds for or against Deletion. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh and I apologize if I am getting a little passionate, just a big fan and I think this article has the potential for a Good Article and over time probably a Featured Article (and Featured List of we get List of WWE Yolo County Tag Team Champions). I try to have a discussion based on policy not my fandom, I apologize if I get carried away at times, not my intention. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) (Card Carrying member of The "No Drama" Professional Wrestling Society (NDPWS))[reply]

Weak keep I honestly think it passes GNG.
talk) 22:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete for several reasons.
WP:TOOSOON. Some things are uncitable, which leads to assumptions being made on its existence prior to Tuesday night (June 11, 2019). There was no announcement that these are now in fact WWE titles. It was said that they belonged to Yolo County Wrestling, and based on a quick Google search, that doesn't exist. Granted, in the past (like the 60s and 70s), WWE have claimed fictitious things when debuting titles (like Buddy Rogers winning a tournament that never actually happened), but back then, the internet wasn't really a thing, so kayfabe was much easier to get away with. The belts are made of cardboard, which is the biggest giveaway that this is a joke and not something that will last. MPJ-DK is a bit passionate on keeping this article, and I think that is largely due to him being the one who basically made the article, and I can understand that. This may pass GNG, but we also need to use common sense when deciding if an article should actually be made, regardless if it passes GNG. --JDC808 ♫ 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A few points below in the interest of enlightenment. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says the history is unknown, which you agree with.

No announcement, but the WWE did do a "championship photo shoot" afterwards and posted it on WWE.com, I would no be opposed to moving it to Yolo County Tag Team Championship, I just went with what the article originator called it, I'm cool.

Article does not mention "Yolo County Wrestling" (any more)

Provide a source that confirms that this is a joke please.

Yes, I agree that it is unknown, which makes anything prior uncitable, so that then leaves us with OR to assume the jobber team were the inaugural champions and their reign length is only a day. If this were a "legitimate" title in professional wrestling terms, that would be one thing, but as of right now, this is not (no official title history exists).

WWE does lots of photoshoots (see quoted bit from fifth source provided below).

This is of course kayfabe, but shouldn't that still be mentioned?

No source from WWE is gonna right out call it a joke, not at this moment anyways (although Byron Saxton basically did during the broadcast), but none will call it an official championship either. Here are some other sources, however, that basically do:

--JDC808 ♫ 06:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those quotes say that the championship is a joke, to SYNTH from the last one that "you’re not in WWE then you’re a joke" is an egrerious piece of Original Research. Oh and ringsidenews.com is not a reliable source either, so double whammy there. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for sources that called it a joke. These are basically doing just that. "worth a laugh", "homemade belts', "jobbers wearing cardboard belts", "humorously", (in reference to unifying the belts), "spoofing WWE's traditional photoshoots", and the last is in reference to the so-called "inaugural" champions, and in turn this championship (essentially saying that WWE thinks anything outside of them is a joke). A source doesn't have to be an RS to recognize a joke, it would just be taken more seriously if it was an RS in this case (and ringsidenews is not the only website that cited Meltzer's quote, just the one I happened to grab). --JDC808 ♫ 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, and you did not provide a single one tha actually say they are a joke. I did not ask for "quotes you can infer they are a joke" to do a bit of SYNTH. So still have not provided anything saying that it is a joke. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The English language has many different ways to say something without using the exact language that you are asking for, though Meltzer's quote does in fact use the word joke (in referencing things outside of WWE, which these titles were presented as). --JDC808 ♫ 23:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So yes the word "joke" is used for something outside of WWE pre-dating this - a comment which you then

WP:SYNTH to also apply to something that was not mentioned or even thought of at the time. So you have yet to present an actual source that says it is a joke to back up your claim despite several tries. Not saying you should give up, but you've had several swings and misses on this, maybe you need to walk away from an argument you are not able to make? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't predate it. This championship is part of that same quote. You can attempt to say these don't back my claim, but that's something for the admins, or someone not passionate about this, to decide. --JDC808 ♫ 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I am wrong, I am wrong - your piece of SYNTH is not based on a quote that predates the creation, sorry about the mistaken on dating the source you Synthezised into "this is a joke". MPJ-DK (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of cooperation I will conseed that if you made the argument that that this championship is "speculated" to be part of a ‘it’s WWE or it doesn’t count you’re not in wrestling.' argument that would not have been a SYNTH argument. Does a speculation by an unreliable source belong in the artilce? Is speculation by someone outside WWE an argument for deletion? I leave that for others to judge. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - regardless if it's a "joke", that means nothing. Is it notable. I think so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its notable and well sourced.--TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't know~~ It feels
WP:ROUTINE match results. If these disappear after a few episodes of SmackDown then we'll at least need to delete them at that point.LM2000 (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- I'm deciding on ~~Move to draft~~. A lot of work has been put into this article and it would be a shame to delete it right now and then have to start from scratch if WWE keeps this going. It's just
  WP:TOOSOON to assume they will do that and WWE has a tendency to drop storylines without notice. Let's see where this stands in a month or two.LM2000 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Going with a hard Delete now that it's more clear this was a one-week gag. Obviously someone can keep this in their sandbox in case it makes another appearance but right now it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure how gimmick championships are done on here (i.e. the Internet Championship) but I don't see the belt lasting long. Plus the article is pretty poorly written. Also do they qualify as a legit accomplishment on the respective superstar's articles? Solitude6nv5 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, and this isn't even really a gimmick championship. The Million Dollar Championship is one that has a lot of notability and wasn't just a one time thing. This on the other hand is purely just for this one storyline. This title is currently listed on the "current" champions respective articles, though it really shouldn't be (their profiles on WWE.com do not list this as an accomplishment, last I checked at least). --JDC808 ♫ 12:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL and as an argument for deletion is invalid. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to all who oppose because WWE did not announce them as champions - WWE Twitter EXCLUSIVE: Say hello to your NEW Yolo County #TagTeamChampions... #HeavyMachinery! @otiswwe @tuckerwwe so it is indeed officially recognized by WWE. It was actually posted on June 11, 2019 - seems that the "it was never announced" people failed to do their proper
WP:BEFORE work. /Sharing the knowledge. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Saw that and like some other things WWE have said on Twitter, it's not an official WWE championship, nor is it officially recognized because WWE have already dropped this part of the storyline. Where were these supposed championships tonight? According to the commentators,

Stomping Grounds will be Heavy Machinery's first title opportunity since joining SmackDown, essentially rendering the Yolo titles obsolete. I didn't get to see tonight's match live, but the video of the match posted to WWE's YouTube channel makes no mention of these titles (this same video has the commentator's remark). Then there's this post-match interview, and again, no mention of the Yolo titles as if they never existed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Keep - The titles are recognized by WWE. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not. --JDC808 ♫ 04:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON creation that seems to have not had any significance. All sources are
WP:INHERITED, and much of the article engages in SYNTH. A one-week gag does not deserve an article. oknazevad (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - one-show joke which has already been forgotten about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are
WP:ROUTINE coverage of the show, an item that lasted one episode does not deserve a Wikipedia article. StaticVapor message me! 19:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This result may either be a no consensus, procedural keep, or move to draft result based in what was given. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats up to the closing Admin to decide. But in my opinion the argument of all the sources being
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, its a clear delete. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:02, 19 June 2019 (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.