Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCH Sharks

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCH Sharks

University sports teams with no reliable and independent sources referenced or likely to be available. British university sport is very unlike US college sport, in that with a very few exceptions British university sports teams are not followed by many - if any - outside (and even normally within) their respective universities. Pfainuk talk 14:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete all. As the nominator says, university sport in the UK is barely followed in the institutions let alone noted by the wider community (boat race excepted). As such, these all fail notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - university sports are a big deal in the US but, with a few exceptions, have ground level public profile in the UK. TerriersFan (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is rediculous, the sites should gefinately stay on american football is not followed as much in britain as it is in america but it is still a ever expanding sport. and being a player myself i think its insulting to be told we are not followed by our university. we have more fans at a american football game than any other team in the university. plus every year the american football makes a considerabe amount of money for various charities and is always top of that list.

these sites should not be closed down just because the sport is not understood by certain people, i think its rediculous that this ncan be even thought of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.240.40 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk Pfainuk talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The standard we use is notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I don't believe these teams make that standard - it's nothing personal against the clubs themselves. Charitable donations are all very worthy, but do not make a team notable. And when you say that there are "more fans at a american football game than any other team in the university", let's remember that this is not necessarily a particularly large number of fans - at most universities an average turnout of half a dozen people who are not club members would put you top of the list in this respect. Pfainuk talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure I have edited and kept many of these articles up to date and agree with the notability fact. But I also think that if these were to go so would many other American football and minority sport articles as these have not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". MrJ 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJ (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of these teams' home colleges don't follow their own cricket or soccer sides, much less American football. The anonymous IP editor above doesn't say where they are at college, or what reliable source could back up their claim of high attendance. But in any case, it's a moot point; none of these teams has done anything significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - The person above says "Most of these teams' home colleges don't follow their own cricket or soccer sides, much less American football." That is untrue. The annual xpLosION event hosted by the Birmingham University American Football team draws over 2000 spectators each year and is one of the most highly spectated university sports events outside the Oxford - Cambridge boat race. The University game has had national televised coverage with the Portsmouth Destroyers featuring on Skysports NFL coverage only last sunday as part of a preseason game (surely this alone counts as "notability"?). The people nominating this article for deletion are clearly just ignorant to the increasing popularity of the sport. (Just in case you dont believe we get national coverage - http://s284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/COACHSCOTT69/?action=view&current=skyreport.flv, and also, the current university national champions have been on bbc news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7424591.stm If you want to confirm it actually appeared on the televised news, see the feature video on http://www.buafl.net)stenard (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Portsmouth piece is a trivial mention (the video concentrates on the London Olympians, whose coverage is also pretty trivial), and the Southampton piece - from BBC local news - contains very little if anything about the team beyond the fact that it won the championship last year. If that's the only independent source we've got then that team does not need a separate article to say it.

Regarding the rest of this argument, the fact that the largest event involving the teams gets only 2000 spectators does not suggest to me that the teams that competed are notable, let alone those that did not. That it is one of the most watched university sports events (and I will accept this assertion in good faith) says more about British university sport than it does about the notability of the teams. The "increasing popularity of the sport" is irrelevant to this discussion except where it creates significant coverage in reliable and independent sources about a team - if there is none, as I contend for all of these, then our article on that team is inherently unverifiable and should be deleted. Note that I am not arguing to delete the article British Universities American Football League, which is also short on references. I am only arguing to delete the articles on the clubs that make up that league.

Finally, I note that I have added ~~two~~ one more, similar article. I believe that the arguments above cover ~~those two~~ that one as much as the others (as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy), but nonetheless if an admin or one of those who has voted to delete above wants to remove it then they are welcome to do so. Pfainuk talk 12:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: one of them was a already up there but I apparently forgot to tag it before. It is now tagged.) Pfainuk talk 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close this bundle nomination; as it is highly likely that each of these, considered individually, could be notable independent of the group. Nominate individually, after individually considering whether the subject of each meets the requirements of WP:N. We do not declare classes of subjects that cannot be notable; we have clear guidelines for notability that should be followed here; a task that is close to impossible in this bundle nom. This will become a mess if it proceeds as it needs to, as a bundle nomination. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doing a quick google news search for Glasgow Tigers brings back over 1000 hits, so apparently the media follows at least some of these. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a better search. It's more like a few hundred hits.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That search picks up rugby and speedway results. Try this search that produces 9 hits:[2] TerriersFan (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glasgow Tigers are nevertheless a slightly different case to most if not all of the other nominations, in that they field a team in the BAFL — the highest level of the sport in the UK — as well as at university level. Not that I'm particularly arguing that that makes them notable either, only that it should exempt them from any mass deletion based solely on the discussion here. Jellyman (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see your point that Glasgow may be a special case because of the BAFL team. That said, the current article only mentions the BAFL team in passing and is mostly on the BUAFL team. I won't withdraw that one because there are delete votes against it, but as I say I can see your point that the case there may be slightly different. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nothing that can't be fixed, and therefore not a reason for deleting it. I've been working through various BAFL team articles so when I get to the Tigers, the BAFL aspect would be expanded, with the uni team moved to a separate page (or vice versa).Bettia (rawr!) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I vote keep the BUAFL Team pages and start to put references in them instead of a blanket ban. For instance, Today I have started referencing the Brighton Tsunami page and will also start looking to reference other BUAFL wikipages as well. Rather than deleting them, we should be looking to cite and ratify this articles. Brynprice (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- So far, one reference is self-published and the other amounts to two sentences at a site about speed dating. I don't think that meets the standard of notability: if I thought referencing through reliable and independent sources was possible for any of these teams I would not have brought them here. Since you seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia, I should mention that this is not intended as a blanket for-all-time ban on any of these teams ever having articles: we try not to make decisions that are quite so irreversible. Deleted articles can be recreated if the subject becomes notable (though you can't just recreate an old article if circumstances don't change). It's just that these teams aren't notable yet. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepthese clubs have meant alot to thousands of people over the last 25 years and have been extreamley important in the development of american football in the UK, there seems to be no reason to remove them other than someone would like to annoy people.So what if they are not attended as they are in the US, the effort given by the players legitimises it 100%, no different to US college Div 3 games I've been to with only a handful of people in the stands. Most games do pull in decent crowds, way more than other uni sports, simply because their is no professional league, the Sharks routinely have up to 100 spectators at home games and I'm sure some of the bigger more sucessful teams have way more.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/UCH_Sharks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.70.123 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are dozens of sports clubs in every university in the country, and most of these have athletes prepared to put an large amount of time, effort and money into their sport. But that's doesn't form part of our notability requirements, except where it creates significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. And the fact remains that we have seen no such source for any of the clubs listed. Pfainuk talk 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as Jerry suggested above. I believe all of these pages really ought to be considered individually, not as a bundle as some tams may receive more media coverage than others (for example, the BBC have a gallery of a recent Bullets-Blitz match). It should also be noted that all university teams are covered by Britball Now, which I believe would count as an independent third-party source. I also believe it's wrong to say that a team's notability is governed by the number of spectators alone - there are plenty of sports teams who get small attendances but still qualify for a page on Wikipedia. Apart from that, I suggest a Strong Keep for Glasgow Tigers (by virtue of them being a BAFL team - the senior and university teams really should have separate pages, but that's by the by). Bettia (rawr!) 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To add, BBC also have a gallery of last seasons UWE v Bath game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.13.103 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This is a fairly large league in terms of number of players playing a sport all over the UK watched by a relative large number of fans (our local team can get quite a crowd). How are some of the small soccer or rugby clubs (eg Leith_Athletic_F_C with less members and less fans going to seem more important than these. Where do you stop? Yes a lot of the articles need tidying and better references but definatly not remove. And I would say some Uni's would contest the fact that noone outside their universities support them. JamesCollins (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nominated as a group, keep as a group. First, I note that some article have already survived stand-alone AfDs, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrey Stingers. Second, the group is too large to allow for a reasonably well-considered deletion of then en masse. Finally, if any remedy is needed for the articles, it's merger—and that's a subset of the keep outcome anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep You have got to be kidding me. My old coach would have killed someone if he'd read this. I'd just come on to Wikipedia hopeing to find some info on my old team (Plymouth) and find some idiots stuck a delete at the top. UK uni football is big in uni's that run it (well all the ones round the south coast anyway) and this info should definatly be kept. 83.104.87.89 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. The fact remains no-one has actually demonstrated that any one of these teams meets the general notability guideline - we have not seen a single reliable and independent source that gives any of these teams significant coverage. The idea that a BBC Local picture gallery confers notability seems slightly bizarre - is this mosque notable, solely by virtue of being the subject of a BBC Local picture gallery? What about this event? I am also inclined to believe that had I posted 40 identical AFD's, I'd have had people complaining that I should have put consolidated them into one. Pfainuk talk 19:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the galleries, strictly speaking that would probably count as third-party independant coverage (as required by WP:N), although it would probably need further sources to beef them up. The point I was making by posting that gallery (and perhaps one I should've made clearer - apologies for that) is that coverage DOES exist for BUAFL teams (and the BBC is a very major source, I might add). More importantly, such sources exist outside Google, hence the need for WP:GHITS. When looking for sources on any subjects such as these, it's sometimes necessary to narrow down the searches to a more local level. As far as your complaint above about no-one providing a source giving significant independant coverage, I have already demonstrated that with Britball Now - it is independant from any team, gives coverage to the uni teams, and it's the biggest resource on American football in this country. Hot Iron is another site focusing solely on the Scottish teams, and I believe First Down magazine also covers these teams. I also want to draw attention to the already-closed AfD provided by C.Fred as it makes an extremely valid point - the size of any of the teams is irrelevant, what's relevant is the fact that they form part of a large, national competition. These teams aren't playing in a tinpot local competition to see who gets the drinks in after the game, they're competing for the right to be the best uni team in the UK. I've participated in a number of AfDs regarding sports teams, and the single most overriding factor is the status of the league they play in - if a league is of a high enough standing, that confers notability on every team that competes (or has competed) within it. In this case, the BUAFL is the top tier in the country at which they can compete, therefore all these teams ARE notable enough. Bettia (rawr!) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is rather that the fact that this is the highest they can get to doesn't necessarily mean much. I competed at university level in another sport, in competitions to see which was the best university team in the region and in the country. I shouldn't think even the eventual champions would be considered notable in general, let alone our team which generally had some difficulty qualifying. Wikipedia doesn't have articles even for the federations we were members of, let alone the individual teams (though this comparison is clearly not a valid argument to delete the articles noted here). I think that these teams are not notable enough for our guidelines, but I reckon I've said that enough times that everyone who reads this knows what I think, and so now might be a good time for me to step back from this. Pfainuk talk 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Once again I draw your attention to previously stated proof of notability; firstly the piece on BBC News on Southampton Stags after they won the College Championship Game 07/08. Another is the fact that Birmingham Lions get over 2000 supporters to their Xplosion game each season. All the above teams get substaintial coverage on the BUAFl website and also the BAFA website. Under Wiki's own Notability Guidelines: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Brynprice (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There is coverage on a number of teams but it is not all on one non-official site or online. Stirling are reguarly in their student newspaper but this is hard copy and not online. Apart from the official league site, team sites, fans pages and multiple forums (which brynprice mentioned), there are loads of one off sites and reports online - just type a team name into Google. I came back with several forums discussing the 2005 and 2006 seasons for the Bees, coverage on NFLUK.com for several teams and Portsmouth press releases in various places.

You cannot say there is not enough sources for this just becase they aren't mentioned on the articles which still need work - 90% of the articles on Wikipedia seem to need more work. Let's get some of these sources onto the pages and add records, team members etc so people can come on to here and find information about these teams rather than a generic page with little information or a page so full of information it's large and unreadable (I don't think we can have even a basic summary, results and roster for over 30 teams on one single page and keep the size down to within Wikipedia standards).JamesCollins (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close discussion and renominate separately - group nominations aren't acceptable if individual articles have already survived an AfD, as has been pointed out before. matt91486 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as above. If not for that issue, I would tend to favor keep, as they are the top university/college teams in a sport within a country. No, it's not nearly as big a deal as college football in the States, but it's the best Britain has. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (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.