Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada national korfball team


 * 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. Fails some combination of WP:N and WP:V. The argument that they are notable for being a national team doesn't seem to hold sway with the other editors who participated, and certainly, hoping that somebody else will provide sources isn't a valid argument for notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Canada national korfball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utterly non-notable sports organization with no coverage in reliable sources, despite apparently being a national team. — swpb T 12:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as seems notable for being a national team, hopefully some Canadian editors can supply some offline reliable sourcesAtlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That fact alone does not demonstrate notability. Being a national team suggests the topic might be notable; it does nothing to show that it is. It's an obscure sport; it's perfectly reasonable that even a national team would not be notable, and the complete lack of sources backs that up. Please remember that AfD is not a vote—comments must make valid arguments to be considered. — swpb T 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep per NSPORTS, if a sport is notable enough for a wikipedia article, then as a rule the national teams (at least of major nations) are also notable. That said, I would like to see more sources. Montanabw (talk)  23:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the very first paragraph of WP:NSPORT, particularly the bolded sentence. In the absence of RS, all other criteria are irrelevant. Then read the basic criteria section. NSPORT doesn't at all support your position. At all. Which makes sense, because it's absurd to believe that if a sport is minimally notable, all self-declared national teams must be notable. Please make your arguments based on what policy and guidelines actually say, not what you want to believe they say. — swpb T 13:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , Korfball is not listed at NSPORTS. And while obscure compared to baseball or something, it was an Olympic demonstration sport and there are multiple international teams today. So please do not attack other editors.  Let people who !vote on this issues each have their say.  The closing admin can weigh the arguments. A basic google search brings up many RS to improve the quality of the article.  Montanabw (talk)  20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't attacked you, I've attacked your arguments, which deserve to be attacked because they offer nothing of value. Oh, a Google search turns up RS? Which ones? I see a lot of completely irrelevant results. Perhaps that's because you haven't put any effort into filtering that search to ignore irrelevant results. Try this search (the one I did before nominating the page) to get some idea of how notable this topic really is—a bunch of unattributed Wikipedia mirrors, and absolutely nothing that could be called significant coverage by a reliable source. You're right that the closing admin will weigh the arguments, so with that in mind, maybe offer something with weight. — swpb T 12:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please get a grip. And "they offer nothing of value" is belittling, attacking language. The proper thing to say is, "I disagree" and make your own case. This is not the hill I'm going to die on because I really don't have intense feelings about Korfball (though it's fun to say the word, "korfball").  Frankly, if you are filtering out the major two sanctioning bodies in your search, that's a problem.  The reasoning is simple:  1)  Does the sport itself meet WP:N?  Yes.  So 2) Do the international sanctioning bodies that govern the sport consider this one of their major teams?  Yes.  Therefore, 3) WP:N is met.  Maybe not by much, but reasonable minds can differ without your scorched earth approach.   Montanabw (talk)  22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't need to explain to you that the organization that runs a sport isn't an RS for establishing the notability of its teams. Why should I pretend you've offered something of value when you haven't? Would you really be happier if I tore apart your arguments with coddling language? The content will be the same. — swpb T 16:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to "tear apart" anyone's arguments at all? You made your case, I made mine,  relisted it as not having sufficient discussion.  You have nothing to prove with me and I have no interest in dying on the hill for Korfball.  Now drop the stick and move on.   Montanabw (talk)  22:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Forget notability, this one fails WP:V and may be a hoax. If such a "team" even exists, there would be at least 1 reliable source right? But there is none. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And the BBC reference in the article doesn't support the content at all. I have removed it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this seems like a hoax or a good case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. No information can be verified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be more careful about saying "hoax." There clearly IS a Canadian Korfball Association:, . It is also mentioned as a "real" sport in Canada here:  (41st in the world, but hey...).  It looks like the Winnipeg-area team IS the national team. As I said way up early on, it's a weak keep, but it's not a fake and it's not a hoax.  Montanabw (talk)  18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This link has precisely 3 words "Canada Korfball Association". And nothing else even mentions canada
 * This link lists members of IKF and lists a "Canada Korfball Association" located in "Canada"
 * That's it. There is absolutely nothing else which even mentions that there is a national team. (The rankings do not mention the team either)
 * Since there is no evidence, I cannot assume that "Canada Korfball Association" == "Canadian National Team" (See WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED). Not one reliable source says that a "Canada National Korfball Team" exists. (In fact, the article contained an unsourced sentence that there is a "North America" team which consists of US and Canadian players combined). I see this as something which fails WP:V.
 * And even if I were to assume that "Canada national korfball team" is actually the "Canada Korfball Association", it would need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH which it clearly doesn't. Either way, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: That might be a solution -- create Canadian Korfball Association, move this text, edit and expand. From what I can tell in some general chatter, this team is based in Manitoba and appears to be the only team in Canada that competes in assorted competitions, saw one link that mentioned a US/Canada game in passing.  Would a merge and redirect of this sort work for you?  Montanabw (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had though of that at first. But when I got down to searching for sources, I couldn't find even one reliable independent source which talks about either "Canada Korfball Association" or even "Manitoba Korfball Association" (there was one post in a forum but nothing more, and even that doesn't really contribute anything to the information). More importantly, an association would need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH for which there are simply no sources available. I see this as one case where sources are simply not available to even verify the most basic information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, such a solution would obviously not work, because it clearly does nothing to resolve, or even address, the central problem of demonstrating notability. — swpb T 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2016 (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.