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.
There's no indication that this tournament is notable. Yes, it's an international event but ball hockey is a recreational sport. There's no elite level. It does not pass
WP:EVENT or
WP:GNG.
Tchaliburton (
talk) 21:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's the World Championship of an internationally sanctioned sport. ALL sports are recreational. There are plenty of sources, too, about this specific tournament to meet
WP:N:
[1][2][3][4][5]. It literally took about 20 seconds to load google to see that this is notable. An article needing work is not the same as an article not being notable. --
162.95.216.224 (
talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123(natter) @ 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. More specifically, searching for sources reveals no depth of coverage.
[6] is
routine coverage.
[7] is not about the event, but merely mentions it once.
[8] is about a team expected to compete, but not about the event itself, and actually says "Oh wow, there’s a ball hockey world championships – who knew?".
[9] is the closest to being an appropriate citation, but half the article is about a player who competed in the event.
[10] is more routine coverage, that is primarily about the Canadian teams and not the event itself.
Becky Sayles (
talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
You realize those were just the first random links I found while searching google. Everything is going to be coverage specific to the event...because it is an event. Here are more. These are all reliable, secondary sources.
[11][12][13][14] [1670365-boufounos-milonow-on-the-experience-of-playing-at-the-ball-hockey-womens-worlds] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
162.95.216.224 (
talk) 19:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
[15] and
[16] and
[17] are about hockey players going to compete in the event, not the event itself.
[18] is about a player at the event apologizing for his conduct. None of these has any depth of coverage.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 03:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: I dunno -- the coverage looks enough to me. Those are full-scale articles, in reliable sources, discussing this tournament in detail. That's a GNG pass, and trying to argue that the coverage has no "depth" is crocked. The GNG doesn't require 20-page essays. It also looks at the breadth of coverage--- if you've got a flipping lot of sources, that's an indicator in of itself. I don't agree with anon SPAs much, but I got to admit he's got a point that the GNG doesn't care whether there's an "elite" level or whether a sport's played recreationally or not. Nha TrangAllons! 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The length of the articles isn't at issue. After reviewing all the references in the article and raised in this discussion, it seems clear that they do not actually cover the subject of the article, but rather subjects related to the article. These appears to be an attempt at
inheritance of notability.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpinningSpark 08:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. When you can find an assortment of news articles about different iterations of this tournament, it's reasonable to reach the conclusion that the tournament itself is worth covering on Wikipedia. The Toronto Sun article cited above begins by informing the reader that this tournament draws more fans than the world ice hockey championship.
[19] In addition to the sources noted above there's also
this, which is in substantial part about the 2013 tournament. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (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.
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.
There's no indication that this tournament is notable. Yes, it's an international event but ball hockey is a recreational sport. There's no elite level. It does not pass
WP:EVENT or
WP:GNG.
Tchaliburton (
talk) 21:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's the World Championship of an internationally sanctioned sport. ALL sports are recreational. There are plenty of sources, too, about this specific tournament to meet
WP:N:
[1][2][3][4][5]. It literally took about 20 seconds to load google to see that this is notable. An article needing work is not the same as an article not being notable. --
162.95.216.224 (
talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123(natter) @ 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. More specifically, searching for sources reveals no depth of coverage.
[6] is
routine coverage.
[7] is not about the event, but merely mentions it once.
[8] is about a team expected to compete, but not about the event itself, and actually says "Oh wow, there’s a ball hockey world championships – who knew?".
[9] is the closest to being an appropriate citation, but half the article is about a player who competed in the event.
[10] is more routine coverage, that is primarily about the Canadian teams and not the event itself.
Becky Sayles (
talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
You realize those were just the first random links I found while searching google. Everything is going to be coverage specific to the event...because it is an event. Here are more. These are all reliable, secondary sources.
[11][12][13][14] [1670365-boufounos-milonow-on-the-experience-of-playing-at-the-ball-hockey-womens-worlds] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
162.95.216.224 (
talk) 19:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
[15] and
[16] and
[17] are about hockey players going to compete in the event, not the event itself.
[18] is about a player at the event apologizing for his conduct. None of these has any depth of coverage.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 03:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: I dunno -- the coverage looks enough to me. Those are full-scale articles, in reliable sources, discussing this tournament in detail. That's a GNG pass, and trying to argue that the coverage has no "depth" is crocked. The GNG doesn't require 20-page essays. It also looks at the breadth of coverage--- if you've got a flipping lot of sources, that's an indicator in of itself. I don't agree with anon SPAs much, but I got to admit he's got a point that the GNG doesn't care whether there's an "elite" level or whether a sport's played recreationally or not. Nha TrangAllons! 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The length of the articles isn't at issue. After reviewing all the references in the article and raised in this discussion, it seems clear that they do not actually cover the subject of the article, but rather subjects related to the article. These appears to be an attempt at
inheritance of notability.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpinningSpark 08:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. When you can find an assortment of news articles about different iterations of this tournament, it's reasonable to reach the conclusion that the tournament itself is worth covering on Wikipedia. The Toronto Sun article cited above begins by informing the reader that this tournament draws more fans than the world ice hockey championship.
[19] In addition to the sources noted above there's also
this, which is in substantial part about the 2013 tournament. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (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.