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. No prejudice against a redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions[edit]

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

This lists offers nothing new. There is no actual title, it's just 2 separate titles held together. Both title already have their own history lists here on Wikipedia and the article on the unified belts has the same info already as well. Prod removed by an IP (who I suspect is the same user that reverted me when I turned the article back into a redirect because the IP hadn't edited in 4 months). TJ Spyke 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and the World and WWE Tag Team Championships have seperate title histories and this would make it easier to see the each reign.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both title history pages note when the titles were unified, so this page offers nothing that those 2 don't. If anything, this page is LESS useful because you then have to go to another page if you want to see who held each title before WrestleMania XXV. TJ Spyke 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah but if they want one of the titles specifically they can go to that page and not this page.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like TJ said, it's a unification of two existing championships, and has not been treated as being a seperate title. The page is an unnecessary re-creation of content that is available in two other pages. It could possibly recreated in a year or so if it doesn't look like the belts will ever be un-merged. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before this would make it easier for people to look at the reigns when the titles are unified so it should be kept.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. There is no article for unified WWE champions or Unified any other champion to my knowledge. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My explaination is right.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unneeded non-notable list that is just a split of two separate articles.--WillC 05:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a page that has info listed on two other pages.--Steam Iron 08:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly and most importantly, it is not a title in its own right. It is a union or group of titles. Also in terms of title history, its purpose is already served by List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) and List of WWE Tag Team Champions. -- Θaks ter 10:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. HAZardousMATT^toxic 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would make it easier for people just look at champions when the titles are unified.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Also as I've said before if they want one of the championships specifically then they'll go to that page.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles for the individual titles state the titles were unified, and both list of champions specify that the titles were unified. Each of these articles conveniently links to the other. If anything, List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions should redirect to one of the lists, possibly List of WWE Tag Team Champions. HAZardousMATT^toxic 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to be a redirect, it would idealy be Unified WWE Tag Team Championship as redirecting to one of the lists would have show an unequal bias towards one of the two championships, when they are clearly both currently treated as equal. And to Curtis, a bit of friendly advice. You do know that this is a discussion, not a vote? Making two keep votes isn't helping your stance on this. -- Θaks ter 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with redirecting it to the article for the unified titles themselves. I didn't even realize that article existed. HAZardousMATT^toxic 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right but nobody else thinks I am show me the rule that says that I can't create this article.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering there's already two existing, notable Lists that have the same information, WP:REDUNDANT should apply. HAZardousMATT^toxic 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah but this is not the same.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain, succinctly, clearly and plainly, how the information in List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions is different than the information in the other two list of tag team champions. Thus far you haven't made an argument that it adds anything new. You've said that it links back to the lists for the individual titles (which again brings WP:REDUNDANT into question since the other two articles have not only the same information, but much more) and that you think you're right. HAZardousMATT^toxic 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gives information about when the titles are unified the top part is also different and as i've said before this list make it eaiser for people to check reigns when the titles are unified so it's plainly different.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also why don't you just put the information in Unified WWE Tag Team Championship in the pages for the World Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship?--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two lists clearly state when the titles where unified, therefore, until those two lists say otherwise, it is listing unified title reigns. The information does not need to be in three different lists and should stay in the two that are notable and established. Please consider everything that is being said by all parties in this discussion. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it does but my past explainations say it all.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your past explanations do not convey much other than "I'm right, so do it". I'm not going to repeat the same information that has been already repeated by multiple parties. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours do to.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all I need to say regarding this, as have others. I'm done. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is useful that's why it should be kept.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why its useful or notable, if WWE.com maintained the Title History in one page rather than 2 I'd understand something like this being maintained on the Unified Tag Team champions page, but since WWE.com maintains this in 2 separate lists it's an obvious Delete. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh it does they both have different title histories.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the point I was trying to make, WWE recognizes it as 2 separate title histories theres no need to recognize it as one, and if you're gonna treat everyone's comment which is against your viewpoint like crap without providing any real or proper arguments don't bother commenting. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Despite ZRF's assertions, this really is just WP:LISTCRUFT. ArcAngel (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All wrong it's not cruft you just don't believe in what's right.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is redundant and not needed here, that's what I (and other editors) believe. ArcAngel (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Looking at the three list articles, it would appear that every new "champion" from now on would have to be entered in three different places. This is not sensible. The canonical solution would be to identify whichever previous title is the more notable, rename it to the new title, then curtail the other list at the point in history where the titles were merged, with a note saying "For champions since the merger, see (name of article). Sussexonian (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more notable title is a no-brainer - it's the World Tag Team championship as it has been around the longest. The WWE Tag Team championship was created for Smackdown in 2002, IIRC, so it doesn't have much of a history. ArcAngel (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list isn't needed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is duplicating existing material and that is a basic failure of the basic tenets of being encyclopaedic. Along with the fact that WWE maintains the two title histories. !! Justa Punk !! 07:58, 23 December 2009 (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.