Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rated-RKO (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. — CharlotteWebb 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rated-RKO

There is no need to have an article on every temporary tag team pairing that comes along. Each of the wrestlers in question have an article already. The temporary tag team alliance can be noted there. Otto4711 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Basically agree with what the person below said. Two of the top superstars in the company, and they're Tag Team Champions right now. What? Should we propose to delete the Kings of Professional Wrestling stable page as well? Put this as temporary, but this is mostly stupid.--Faded 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Every reason to keep it. Factual, NOPV. Notable the top wrestling promotion on TV one of the top tag teams. Notable stars in it. Just mention it was temporary. Wiki's not paper.--Xiahou 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as a bad-faith nom. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rated RKO dated less than a month ago, which was nearly unanimously kept. Overwhelming consensus is that all WWE Tag Team Champions are notable. --RoninBK_ETC 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to vote speedy keep, go right ahead, but keep your false accusations of bad faith to yourself. Otto4711 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep(For Now) Rated-RKO is in a very active state. The article can only be built up. If it is a good enough article when finished then that would be okay. There are problems with the article which I removed. The problem at current is putting Lita down as winning the Woman's championship as Rated-RKO. This would be incorrect, because an alliance or stable helps each other out. Lita had no help or was either escorted to her match. If the article continues to be built around bad data then it will end up being prone to removal. So as long as Rated-RKO stays clean and correct I see nothing wrong with it. Govvy 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Rated-RKO has become the tag team champions, and they are feuding with arguably the most popular tag team today (DX). This is a very notable tag team, and I am left to wonder what thought process motivated this nomination. -- THLR 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: He did it only to justify deleting Christian and Tyson Tomko because I mentioned it's only been two months for Rated RKO whereas that combination had been done for years, is still strong now, and proven notable during its time. And as for Govvy's statement about Lita winning the Women's title being bad data: Orton didn't get help from Evolution when he won the world championship. Yet as far as all parties are concerned, he won the title as a member of Evolution. He didn't stop being a member til after they destroyed him, remember? So Lita being Women's Champion as Rated-RKO's valet is not bad data. As far as I'm concerned, keep Christian and Tomko, keep Rated-RKO, and keep Lita's title reign as part of Rated-RKO.

• Actually, I did it because in my opinion a two-month old tag team is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, which is exactly what I said in nominating the article. I'm getting really sick of editors over the last couple of days failing to assume good faith on my part. Regardless of whether there's an article on Christian and Tyson Tomko, it remains my opinion that there should not be one on this tag team. If enough people disagree that consensus is established to keep this or any other article, so be it. But you need to knock off this bullshit phony accusation of bad faith. Otto4711 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The overall consensus established by countless wrestling afds in the past says that holding a title is equal to notability, with the exception of teams like Ric Flair and Roddy Piper. -- THLR 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Flair and Piper were thrown together and have absolutely no recognition as a true tag team. Rated-RKO was allied together with a singular purpose, and their gimmicks - while already similar in nature - were put into a noticeably more unified stance after they banded together. Based on that alone, Rated-RKO is a definite keep unless they suddenly break up out of nowhwere and lose the tag titles. Yes, they are a two-month-old tag team, but they are the it team on the scene right now on RAW, and general consensus is they will last considerably longer than two months. 172.149.224.143 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• My point exactly. With the exception of transitional champions like Ric and Roddy, holding the belts is equal to notability. -- THLR 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• However, what determines whether tag team champions are transitional? We may have thought that Flair and Piper were transitional, and with enough time we can determine they were transitional champions (time being relative here, as I think it's fairly safe to say they ended up being just transitional champions), but can we really make that judgment now about Rated-RKO? There's arguments for and against it. I would say don't be quick to make pages about a tag team that's held championships just because they seem to not be transitional champions. Anakinjmt 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• We can judge now that they won't be transitional champions because it looks like they will be a part of one of the best tag team divisions Raw has had since Edge and Christian, the Hardy Boyz, and the Dudleys. With DX, the Hardy Boyz, Rated-RKO, and maybe MNM, it is fair to judge that there will soon be a tag team revival on Raw, and the current tag team champions will be a part of it. The stage is perfectly set for Rated-RKO to become one part of a resurrected tag team division, and at this particular time it would be unwise to delete this article. If it turns out that I am wrong, then there is nothing stopping another afd, but right now this article meets the standards of Wikipedia. -- THLR 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Aren't all tag teams temporary by nature? They last just as long as they are popular/infamous. This one is pretty "big" at the moment and both of the wrestlers are notable. A definite keep I must say. --Eqdoktor 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI thought they would break up after cyber sunday but they are the tag team champs now so they should be around for a while. any team that has teamed regularly should have an artile, especially if they have won titles. --Nymetsfan 18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WWE Tag Teams that have won Championships Need I say more? semper fi — Moe 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should Edge and Hulk Hogan have an article? Should The Rock and Chris Jericho have an article? I'm all for keeping Rated-RKO, but I'm not buying the excuse that all tag team champions deserve articles.Mshake3 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This page is good so far and it will only grow. Apparently Rated-RKO will be getting a new member in Kenny so they are not going anywhere anytime soon. Both wrestlers have many fans including myself and this team is already making a great impact, there's no point in deleting this page. - KelVintage
  • I doubt Kenny will join. TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Personally, it doesn't matter to me if the page survives on its own. I think it can for as long as Rated-RKO remains a team, which judged on their heat right now, I would guess it will last at least till Wrestlemania. And, just another comment on Edge and Randy Orton as individuals, forming Rated-RKO seemed like a good idea. Edge needed to get out of the WWE title picture for a while, and Randy Orton really didn't have anything good going on at the moment (as far as I'm considered, putting Carlito in a feud with Randy Orton was lack of use of Orton's talent, despite my feelings on him, he's still a fantastic wrestler), and putting the two of them together as a tag team and having such a high-profile feud with DX was a good call. Just keep that in mind when voting for or against deletion: their feud with DX is a huge feud right now, possibly the biggest feud going on in the WWE right now, which would suggest reason for keeping the article, them being such a noteworthy team right now. Anakinjmt 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Article meets criteria.. as it is both named and has had a title run... however just being named, or just having a title run isnt a suitable criteria unless no individual articles exist --- Paulley
• Keep: What's to say they are a temporary tag team? Rated RKO I doubt is a temporary team, as they draw ratings with their feud w/ DX. The last time there was a vote to delete this, everyone wanted to keep it. If they were to be just a small temporary team, WWE would not go out of their way to give the team a name such as "Rated-RKO". They would simply call them "Randy Orton and Edge". Also the fact that they are the current holders of WWE's World Tag Team Championships, so I think this article is very notable to keep. --James Maxx 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination. They are dominating the storylines, have been tag champs for over a month, and no sign that this is just a "temporary alliance". TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: I personally believe teams that have won a championship, especially a major championship like in WWE, and even more especially if they are top-tier guys, dominating the storylines (as TJ Spyke alluded to before me).-- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: Current World Tag Team Champions, in a major storyline, two of the brightest WWE superstars who will probably stay together to at least WrestleMania - and beyond. Any other points?! Bad faith nomination. 86.20.53.195 17:17, 12 December 2006 (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.