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 No consensus. There is consensus that the article should not exist in its current state, but more discussion is required to determine exactly what to do. All involved editors are invited to continue discussion, or boldly solve the problem according to the proposals in this discussion (merge and/or disambiguate). Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blazers/Cowboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article in question is about a series of teams that played in the WHA from 1972 to 1977. However, each of the teams covered by this article have their own articles (Miami Screaming Eagles, Philadelphia Blazers, Vancouver Blazers, Calgary Cowboys) essentially making this page redundant. Further, this article has perhaps the most bizarre title I have ever seen. That probably doesn't matter to the AfD, but it's certainly still weird. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed due to the existence of articles about all the teams covered by this overall title, and an unlikely redirect. But the title isn't that bizarre. I've seen pages with names such as Guards in riot gear take killer to the toilets, Juane and rayne are the masters of the universe, All this from singing songs coming up though we thought slinging raw was the end all, be all, Do cows eat people?, Yes; For a friend, and Mlmked, Mlmk'd (mlmk being kicked from yet another group). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why all the versions of this team in different cities have separate articles anyway. We don't necessarily do that with other teams in other leagues. For example, St. Louis Browns is a redirect to Baltimore Orioles, not a separate article. I am striking my delete recommendation due to the attribution requirement problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. The article was a merger some years ago at a time when it was felt a succession of teams that lasted only one or two years before moving on, all part of the same franchise, could not exist as standalone articles. That strategy had long since been abandoned in the hockey project when I split out Calgary Cowboys. It seems the other teams were subsequently split last month. Unfortunately, since these splits were basically cut and paste moves, this article cannot be deleted as it is required to maintain attribution. Where in the hell we redirect it to, however, I am not certain. Perhaps do a history merge on one article at random? Resolute 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. Perhaps we could merge everything into the Vancouver Blazers article, being the most recent team other than the Cowboys? That way we can get rid of the strange Blazers/Cowboys title, and redirect the Philadelphia and Miami teams to the Vancouver article. Just a thought. The only problem is, I don't doubt that the individual articles would be created again. So maybe a history merge into the Vancouver article is best (again, this being because it was the longest living and most recent of the three clubs). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking the Philly article since it was the first team that played, but it doesn't much matter either way, does it? We'd then need to put one of those attribution templates on the other three articles' talk pages pointing back to the edit history. Resolute 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambigution to all three teams, perhaps? Patken4 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambigution as suggested by Patken4. Dolovis (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation Seems to make most sense to me. --Hockeyben (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back - these teams simply don't need their own pages and having a DMB page as well is yet another unnecessary complication. Better to have one page from which the history of the franchise can be followed. It must be far easier for the reader to have all the information in one place rather than having to piece the history together, from separate pages, themselves. TerriersFan (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2011 (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.