Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Dynasty

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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Dynasty

It reads like it's just some paintball team that has won some odd tournaments. I'm not seeing any notability. I had it speedy nominated, but the author removed that, so I'm doing it the hard way. Anyone else want to chime in? Edit: No vote -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'll put my sources on the page so that it will be better. how about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfloop (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Also, please point out why the group is notable, ie. why it deserves an article in a general encyclopedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as completely non-notable, vanity, and highly POV. Please, do show us the independent, reliable sources that describe your team as the best team in the world. -- Kicking222 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its not my team. And i said its greatly considered to be the best in the world. And thats fact just look at the stats that they have. What else can i do to make it a real "article" Monkeyfloop
Keep. True, the article needs some sources, but they are easily verifiable, as easy as googling to show some other prima facie cruft or neologism is not notable. When an article claims things like "First Pro Team to win the World Cup"; "Series Titles..." and then a list of multiple world championships, I can't understand why you would state that you are "not seeing any notability". The assertion of notability is there in spades. Here's my two second google results: "The WB and CBS, channels 5 and 8, actually shot some staged play by local Professional teams XSV and Dynasty...NBC will be here TODAY filming several live shots from 3:30 - 6:30 pm." [1]; "Dynasty are the reigning champions of the NPPL and PSP circuits" @ about.com's listing of Professional Paintball Teams; more info here and here. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The assertion was present, but sources were absent. I'm still not completely convinced, but I may change my mind in light of some of this. That's a big may. Just because NBC or whatnot had a few things from one of their events is not a notability thing, since the local news has recorded various dumb things around my own city that would never get in the Wiki. Also want to add: Monkeyfloop has removed this nomination from the AfD page, though that's been reverted. Please don't. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

I don't understand what else i could do to prove this is worth being an article. Look here if you want to be shown its legit. [2] Monkeyfloop

Keep. Appears to meet notability for a professional team. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a REAL PROFESSIONAL PAINTBALL TEAM! Not MonkeyFloop's Team... Yes, it is considered one of the best in the world. Honestly, do some reasearch on the matter before deleting it, how ignorant can you people be. www.google.com And put in "Dynasty Paintball" 71.96.163.107

Comment: Please attempt to argue the merits instead of insulting people.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, professional sports teams would appear to be notable under any circumstances, even for minority sports such as paintball. However I couldn't find specific notability guidelines for sport so I base this more or less on WP:BIO. Problematically, most or all of the existing content appears to be a copyvio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non notable team of a non notable sport. Is paintball even organized to the level that there can be professional teams in the true sense of the word? I doubt it. At the very best, this article would be be best merged into an article on paintball but I would even disagree with that. Delete based on POV and vanity. --Strothra 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that this is a WP:VSCA case, but it apparently meets WP:BIO. Convince me that VSCA has precedence and I'll change my vote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A non-notable team? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dynasty&btnG=Google+Search Well, What do you know? It seems that when you input "Dynasty" into google, that the first search result seems to be "Dynasty Paintball" Hmmm... I think that that's enough credibility... Dont you? 71.96.163.107
Keep, notable team of a notable sport. Please make an effort to be civil. Silensor 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strothra please do research on the sport before you ask if it is organized. Also maybe turn on ESPN 2 sometime. They are showing one of the world's biggest Paintball Tournaments right now. And also Oliver Lang (who is mentioned in my article) makes 100,000$ a year playing paintball. I'm pretty sure that's professional enough. Monkeyfloop
Comment Strothra, how about www.pbstar.com I think that this is sufficient "notability" for you. Look at all the videos on that site, See how many tournaments have been played by how many people? See all the Locations for the tournaments? New Orleans, Huntington Beach, Tampa, Austin, LA, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bangkok, Shanghai... How is that for "notability"?
Keep The Research speaks for itself. Living large 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll roll with a Weak Keep. Some non-primary sources mentioning Team Dynasty or the paintball tournaments they've been involved in would still be appreciable though; especially some more general news / sports news. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
0_o? How are the sources not primary? They come off of the teams official website. That makes absolutely no since to me. Since a primary source is about someone who was actually there, these people were actually there and this is their website thats primary in my opinion. Monkeyfloop
Comment. Ye've flipped it. I said I wanted non-primary sources. These are sites that are not affiliated with the team. Those are more objective by nature. Like I said, it seems like they meet the notability requirements (hence my weak keep), but I'd like to see some mention of they or the tournaments they've been in outside of their own website or the tournament's own website. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I will be adding some... 71.96.163.107
Keep This article does seem to have POV issues, but that can be easily fixed by editing the article. And please people, it is much easier to do basic research before putting an article for deletion. And if something seems to have a biased POV you can fix it to become a better artical, remember constructive criticism is better than just saying something is wrong. Smile Lee 09:10, 25 May 2006 (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.