Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bath Killer Bees


 * 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   delete. JForget 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bath Killer Bees

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Yet another non-notable British Uni sports team in what is a niche sport in Britain (American football, in this case). A Google search reveals nothing other than sites for them, their rivals or basic news reports on the Bath Chronicle. Many previous AfDs have concluded that they are non-notable, and I can't see how this one is different. (And if anyone's in doubt as to their popularity, take a look at their Flickr account and count the number of spectators.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the Bath Chronicle reports appear to be mostly reprinted press releases. Other than that, we got some apparently copyvio Youtube videos (of a show that does not demonstrate significant coverage), the student newspaper (not a WP:RS - student journalists tend not to be too hot on fact-checking), a blog that does not provide significant coverage, and some photos.  It's very rare for British university sports teams to meet our notability standards, and this does not appear to be one of the exceptions to this rule. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Pfainuk talk 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral at least they have sources this time. I'm not concerned about the videos because they are links to the videos on another site (unless I'm missing something).  Can't say that I'm super-excited myself about keeping this article.  As to the reliability of the sources cited... well, those are indeed questionable-but I'm not an authority on reliable sources so I deem that voice to others.  And, of course, if it does indeed violate copyright then policy is very clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the copyvio. The other videos are self-published. Pfainuk talk 19:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks the necessary substantial sources needed to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non notable. Whilst the article is one of the exceptions in its class in that it actually has a number of references, I would question the independence and/or reliability of #3 (Video produced by rival team), #8 (Returns 404 but appears to be site of photographer), #9 By the peacock named "Bath Killer Bees Media Productions", and #10 From the University of Bath's own in-house newspaper.


 * In terms of notability, this leaves:
 * 5 references from the Bath Chronicle, a weekly newspaper with circulation of 20,000; Coverage in the Bath Chronicle does not appear to be regular, or sustained. In fact it appears that every mention in the paper has been used in this article. Such  little coverage in a local and low circulation title can't, in my opinion, really demonstrate notability.
 * 2 blogs on the Daily Mirror website, which do nothing other than mention a match result. Incidentally, it is perhaps worth note that this blog has made a grand total of 17 posts on matters relating to BUAFL.  16 of these were between February 2009 and April 2009, with 6 of these concerning a single match.
 * The obligatory mention in the "other sport" section of the local section of the BBC website that hasn't been updated in 2 years.


 * The only other mention I have come across trawling the Internet is a single 2min filler on Five's NFL show (that is broadcast in a graveyard slot - either 7am on Sunday or after midnight).


 * In terms of notability, I dont think that this level of coverage for a sports team that has played regularly for over around 20 years (even if we just look at the last 10 where due to Google et al finding mention should be easy) demonstrates notability. I'm sure most Sunday League teams get more coverage, and it is absurd to consider including the hundreds of such amateur teams that exist.


 * Furthermore, although the article has references, it is by no description fully referenced. Given that just about every source available has been used to get the article to this stage, I don't see how the article can be progressed any further.  That is, large tracts of the article will have to remain unreferenced or be removed. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.