Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli Football Hall of Fame


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Football Hall of Fame

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No third party notability. This thing was launched on March 11, 2009, so the thing is two weeks old. It seems to be a promotion for a TV station. The only sources listed are from the organizations promoting it. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A Google News search turns up nothing, at least in English-language media. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to John - Not a promotion for no TV channel. It's a new project, and I just couldn't find enough info to create a good article. But I agree it might not be notable enough for an article. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 10:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this "Hall of Fame" have any physical existence, like a building? Wikipedia has the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (Cooperstown, NY), the Pro Football Hall of Fame (Canton, OH), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Cleveland, OH), and a List of halls and walks of fame. Most of them have a physical existence.  The Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame apparently does not, but it's been around since 1999. This new thing is now three weeks old. --John Nagle (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are association football Halls of Fame for the United States, England, Australia...why can't Israel also have one? Just because the first inductees are being chosen by a TV show doesn't negate from it's notablity. GiantSnowman 21:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also a Canadian one, and also one for a club - Rangers of Scotland. GiantSnowman 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Canadian one has a museum in Vaughan, Ontario.. The Rangers one probably could be merged into the team article. --John Nagle (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would ordinarily say merge the Rangers one into the team article, but I believe it is sufficient on its own because it relates to a single, notable organization (the Rangers) and the article and the added content would make the article itself too long, so it's fine to set it aside in a well-linked article. This is NOT the case here, where this Hall of Fame is by a TV station with a few paragraphs of material on that page. If anything, I'm sure IFPA should be notable, so there should be an article there and this can go on it. Cquan (after the beep...) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notable members of a class or group do not automatically make all other members of that class or group notable, so if the above mentioned halls of fame are notable, that does not automatically make this one so. Cquan (after the beep...) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the same reason I removed the prod: I find it incredibly hard to believe that this hasn't received coverage in the Israeli press. I don't know enough to search for those sources, but unless somebody convinces me that they do know how to search for them and have attempted unsuccessfully, I'll be in favour of keeping.  Making a good-faith effort to search for sources before nominating is a requirement, and I'd say in this case searching in Hebrew is an important part of that. JulesH (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've managed to find one English language reference this morning so it seems this thing is starting to get some attention, and the number of available sources will probably increase when the other inductees are announced. Like Jules said, there's probably some Hebrew sources as well which could be used to improve the article. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  08:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What we have now is something from Ynetnews: "The channel will carry a special broadcast every Thursday, made to present the viewers with the "candidates." The list will also be available on the channel's website. ... The IFPA will also undertake advancing the physical construction of the hall, in hopes of making it a future public attraction." So we have a future TV show and a talk of a possible future building.  That's not yet notable.  It's still just a publicity campaign. Maybe this should be revisited in a year, per WP:ATA.  If they actually build a Hall of Fame museum, I'd say that it becomes notable on opening day.  --John Nagle (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a physical building is necessary to make a Hall of Fame notable. I'm not sure too many halls of fame started with a building until the number of nominees grew beyond the first few inductees.  But the insitution itself is notable without a physical building. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per User:GiantSnowman and JulesH. English Google is not necessarily an appropriate barometer for the notability of an Israeli institution. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is very new (on the order of a couple weeks) and needs more significant independent sources. I think good faith has been exercised to find sources before nomination. This is the English Wikipedia and there is no reasonable expectation for people to search non-English sources. That onus should be on the editor that created the article and those who want it to stay. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" per WP:V. If anything, since this is the pet project of Sports 5, which has an article, it could potentially be merged there or to the IFPA (not sure if an article exists). Also, the existence of other articles that should not be on Wikipedia is NOT an excuse to have more. Nor is it a reason to say that "blank has one, why shouldn't blank?". This is tantamount to using a random vandalism page created 5 minutes ago to justify making another vandalism page. Cquan (after the beep...) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The IFPA (which is the player's union) doesn't have an article, but the Israeli Premier League (the club operators' organization) does. Maybe this should go in there. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not require English sources.  It only states that English sources are prefered to non-English ones of the same reliability. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying there is a requirement for English sources. I am saying that there is no obligation for searching non-English sources when considering deletion. That lies with the article creator or those who want the content included in Wikipedia. Cquan (after the beep...) 05:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement that "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." A good faith effort to conform that sources aren't likely to exist for an institution in a non-English speaking country involves checking for souces in an appropriate language. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a sourcing concern, which stems from WP:V. There is no issue that this is a verifiable organization. The issue is whether its existence is notable. Further, searching sources in English (which, let's face it, is pretty universal) is a good method because it helps deal with sources that are beyond being merely local. "Attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". This is not to say that English sources are required, but it's definitely a good thing. Also, let's face it, good faith does not require you to go beyond your means, which for your average English WP user means searching in English. If the nom was done by someone who speaks the local language, I'd say that's bad faith to only search in English. As it is anyway, I don't see anything here to indicate that the nomination was done as such...another editor that DID NOT nominate the article did the google news search in English. Cquan (after the beep...) 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But a nomination for an article for which it is clear that most sources are likely to be non-English ought to make an effort to find sources in the appropriate language. There are various ways that can be done.  For example, Google has a translation facility.  That can be dangerous of course.  Better would be to try to get some Wikipedians who speak the appropriate language involved in the process.  For example, the participants in WP:ISRAEL may be a good place to look to find a couple of Wikipedians who may well be able to search for sources in the appropriate language.  After all, if the 6 or 8 people who are currently involved in this AfD are not capable of understanding the sources that could demonstrate notability (or not), then we are not an appropriate group to determine a consensus on that matter for Wikipedia as a whole.  But if some Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians get involved and cannot find evidence of notability, then there is a good chance that this article is non-notable.  But a lack of English sources on Google for this article proves absolutely nothing. Rlendog (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well one way or another, the AfD has started (I think properly), so short of getting this AfD withdrawn on speculation of bad faith, the burden is on those who want this article to stay to present sources. Cquan (after the beep...) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (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.