- Kane and The Big Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I think this page should be undeleted because the reasons given at the AFD at the time were that the team didn't do a lot together and were only together from October 2005 - April 2006 along with the fact that they only won 1 World Tag Team Championship together. Well they have since reformed and won the WWE Tag Team Championship which would make the original AFD reasons void as since then the team have come together for a longer period of time and won more than 1 tag team title. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Go for it - Ask for a copy of the old article in your user-space to work on, add the new sources, then move it back to article-space. The original AfD was from over 3 yrs ago. Tarc (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What we're talking about here is allowing notability to be demonstrated by the fictional activity of performers in scripted entertainment. We don't do this, for good reason, in any other field of entertainment, and should (collectively) think a bit harder about why we allow it for one specialized niche, which these days borders on being a family business. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Actors do. Fictional characters don't. Not for the nature of the scripted activity, which is what's being asserted here. If an actor has a significant role in a notable work, that's enough. It doesn't matter whether the role is as President of the US, Queen of France, or unemployed stumblebum. But the claim here is that this duo is notable as a duo because they "won" titles in performances that were scripted so that the outcome was inevitable. If the role itself is notable, it doesn't matter whether (semi)fictional character wins or loses. Rocky Balboa didn't become more notable simply because his character "won" a fictional fight; he'd be just as notable if he always lost the championship bouts. Real individuals don't actually "win" or "lose" anything in the events involved here; the characters they portray do. And we don't determine the notability of fictional characters based on the outcome of in-universe events; Matt Santos and Arnold Vinick would both be notable characters regardless of which won the fictional election. Helen Santos, however, is borderline-notable at best, and her notability doesn't stand or fall on whether, in universe, the character became First Lady. This whole set of articles does a bad enough job of conflating real-world performers and the characters they portray in McMahon-World; and allowing notability to turn on fictive continuity rather than real-world factors would go way too far. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I don't think the porn analogy quite works, we don't see notability for them winning some award whilst "acting" in the porn movie, but do so for winning awards for the "quality" of their "acting" back in the slightly more real world. Reasonably though it is generally, as you say, about good coverage in reliable independant sources. Any broader issue as to if the inclusion standards or the way the information is presented needs to differ in certain cases is far broader than a DRV discussion. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
