Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harburger TB

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harburger TB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has been tagged for months for improvement without any. Currently there is a single decent source from an independent, reliable, secondary reference (the Adenblatt article). Was draftified, and returned to mainspace, again without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A search for "harburger tb abendblatt" finds plenty of coverage from the Hamburger Abendblatt. I just added content using an Abendblatt article about the energetic renovation of the club's facilities. (Searching for "Adenblatt" won't get you far.)
Our German article, de:Harburger TB 1865, references three books: 1. Vereinslexikon (Enzyklopädie des deutschen Ligafußballs), 2. Legendäre Fußballvereine and 3. Fußball im Norden. 100 Jahre Norddeutscher Fußball-Verband. Geschichte, Chronik, Namen, Daten, Fakten, Zahlen. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Robby.is.on - I actually happen to have one of the editions of the Vereinslexikon, so I will add thatKatoKungLee (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The team competed in Oberliga Nord (1947–1963) (NOTE - Be careful as there was another Oberliga Nord which was the 4th division) in 1949-1954, which was the top division in the north of Germany as there was no national league yet. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability rules state: Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists or in the countries whose national cup does not include all teams who play in the national league(s)) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. The Vereinlexikon book that I used is an independent book source, as is the Fußball-Lexikon book source I used, as is the Fußball-Oberliga Hamburg source I used, along with the various Adenblatt articles I'm going through now.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KatoKungLee Just a pointer, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. I.e. it is not an official Wikipedia rule, it is merely an essay that contains the advice and/or opinions of the Football WikiProject. It even states that teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per KatoKungLee. And I can 100% guarantee that a team that played years in the top level of German soccer will have further WP:OFFLINE coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see the updated references. There's possibly thousands that I didn't go into from the Hamburger Abenblatt - https://www.abendblatt.de/suche/?q=%22Harburger+TB%22&sort=neu&p=4 KatoKungLee (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per updated sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the nominator had done his homework he would notice the rather older de:Harburger TB 1865 article, which passes GNG and would have known this shouldn't need to goto AfD what so ever. It's just as easy to goto WT:FOOTBALL and ask questions about articles, ask someone to improve them rather than just hoping someone will review the provide sources list which a lot of editors don't do. Issues have been addressed by going to AfD, but was that really necessary? Govvy (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy - My concerns on the German article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harburger_TB_1865) are Source #1 is a primary source, so it can't be used on its own. Source #2 - I don't have this book, so I really don't know what's inside of it. Additionally, I don't know if I can get in touch with someone who has it to use as a reference and I really hate to bug people to do stuff like that. I actually bought Source #3 but I also knew of the general format and what was inside, so there was no risk on the purchase. Source #4 is a broken URL and does not work, so it can't be used. I don't own nor can I see Source #5, so I also can't use that and would need to contact someone. For Source #6, I believe it could be written off as a database entry, though I would have been fine with using it. Personally, I felt my original sources were superior to those, but we're here. I would have hoped if anyone saw those German sources and knew they could have been used, they would have used them. I wish I could say that I believe my article can stay in its current state, but I've gotten various calls wrong here so I'm not a good judge. I honestly had no idea about various German newspapers until it was mentioned here. I didn't know how to get a newspapers account nor did I know of Google Books until recently here. But I have them now, so all is well that ends well. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KatoKungLee: Try Source #4-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, since the editor refused to improve the article until it went to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -article has improved. Thesixserra (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Giant Snowman 09:54, 25 March 2023 (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.