Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maison du Sport International


 * 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. Skomorokh, barbarian  00:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Maison du Sport International

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article claims no notability of its subject. Good faith searches identify no significant coverage. There are numerous mentions as there would be for any building whose tenants are mentioned. Bongo  matic  05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The archives of Le Temps, the regional paper of reference (registration required), have two articles with non-trivial mentions:
 * "Lausanne compte une concentration unique au monde de fédérations sportives sur son territoire - 17 fédérations internationales ainsi qu'une vingtaine d'organisations comme le Tribunal arbitral du sport (TAS), le siège européen de l'Agence mondiale antidopage (AMA), etc. Sans compter le CIO. Signe de ce succès, la Maison du sport international, à Vidy, regroupe une partie de ces fédérations et est aujourd'hui pleine comme un œuf, tant et si bien qu'un quatrième bâtiment devrait voir le jour pour permettre à la structure de se développer." |1
 * "Une «Maison du sport international» a également été inaugurée en juin de l'année passé. Son but: offrir des locaux à proximité du siège du CIO aux fédérations et organisations sportives qui souhaiteraient s'établir à Lausanne. Les trois bâtiments affichent déjà complet et la construction d'un quatrième immeuble est d'ores et déjà envisagée."
 * But on the whole, an article like Sports in Switzerland or even Sports in Lausanne would be a better home for such content.  Sandstein   08:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I frankly felt that the very fact that this was to become a center for all WORLD governing bodies, made the facility per se "notable", due to its purpose... and this is certainly  supported by the second letemps article.  Do all involved read French? If not, perhaps a translation would be helpful here.


 * As to the COI allegation, although I was an officer of one of the tenants, I have nothing to do with their being there, and have had no vote in their EB for many years. I have absolutely nothing to do with either of the parties involved in the creation of the facility and thus, even a vested interest is pretty remote an accusation. I shall continue to try to locate more second party references to the organizations  that moved in...
 * Do I get a vote? If so, I vote KEEP
 * Drsjpdc (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added numerous secondary news references and book cites.
 * Drsjpdc (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The additional references in the article provided by Drsjpdc do not appear to go above the "passing reference" level of significance of coverage. While Sandstein's are somewhat more on-point, I don't think they rise to the level of "significant coverage" either&mdash;the level of coverage they represent is not sufficient for establishing encyclopedic notability. Bongo  matic  00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As the only opinion that this article should be deleted is from Bongo, and to be frank, since Bongo has tagged every article that I have written with COI, and Notability issues, and even tagged an article that one of WIKI's senior editors has  written in response to my {call for help). I am fast coming to the suspicion that he has a problem with anything remotely related  to the subject of Chiropractic; (at least it starts to look that way) and assuming that were true, then that itself would be a violation of WIKI's policies.

The logic he uses, seems to be thus; medical journals are ok as sources for articles on medicine, but chiropractic journals and chiropractic texts, and other secondary written sources, (he even challenged the article written by an Australian University that teaches Chiropractic) are not ok for chiropractic articles. What then; only medical sources can be used  for chiropractic articles? By this logic the only source for articles on Judaism would be from the Vatican.

He also seems to have a COI problem with any member  of the Chiropractic profession writing anything remotely related to the Chiropractic profession; presumably on fundamental  COI issues. Again, by this logic, only those with no intrinsic knowledge of the subject and no motive to write on it, would be allowed to publish in WIKI. That would neatly eliminate all articles on Chiropractic. When I started writing for WIKI, I did violate the COI rules and a page I wrote was taken down. I have thoroughly read the rules, and have been very careful not to violate them again.

The only connection that I have to the MIS, is tertiary, i.e., that an agency I once founded, long after I was no longer involved with them, became a tenant in their facility. I am not an officer, of that agency, and have no relationship to, or connection with the MIS, the IOC, or any related agency. This is already absurd.

Can someone please remove this flag? Or show me a a rule that would allow me to do so... Drsjpdc (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: per User:Sandstein. With the improvements to the article since nomination, and the references that Sandstein located that should be incorporated, I think this article merits inclusion in WP. DigitalC (talk) 15:59, 12 October 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.