Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minneapolis Bandolier


 * 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   merge to Bandy in the United States. (or wherever). Ditto of my close @ Articles for deletion/Dynamo Duluth. This one seems to have slightly stronger delete voice, but should those arguing full-delete feel the redirect should also be deleted post-merge, just throw up an WP:RFD and it'll accomplish the same net result. slakr \ talk / 09:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Minneapolis Bandolier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was an objected to prod. The sources on the page are all primary or are simple stat/roster pages. The objection was based on the team winning a national championship. If a team can win a national championship and still not have articles written about it then it is clearly not notable. I was unable to unearth any sources in a fairly extensive search. From what I can tell it is a local recreational bandy team. DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose, this is preposterous. Bandy is a world sport and even if the US may not be a leading country, Minneapolis Bandolier is still national champions many times over. Baseball is a miniscule sport in my home country Sweden, but if a Swedish team was Swedish champion in baseball, I would still see it as having notability because baseball is huge in other countries – like in the US. Bandy boy (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't the notability of Bandy. It is clearly notable. The problem is this specific team. In order to be notable you need to be able to pass WP:GNG in that multiple articles written in depth about the team. Unless you can find some that meet the criteria of WP:RS this specific team is not notable. I think the problem here is that you don't understand what notability in Wikipedia terms means. To use your example the national champion in Ice Hockey in Egypt probably doesn't have enough written about it to have an article, even though the sport is huge in the northern half of the world. Heck there are national teams in some countries that don't even qualify for articles because they don't generate any news articles about them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you do accept that bandy is notable? Well then, why don't you consider Minneapolis Bandolier notable? I don't follow. Even if one could find just one small note about a club being national champion of ice hockey in Egypt, this would still show notability for that club. You can't just claim a lack of notability because there is a lack of information for you to find. A subject for an article may very well be fully notable even if the information is so sparse at the moment, that you can't write much more than a stub article about it until you eventually can find more information. Bandy boy (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because that is how Wikipedia works. The sport is notable and thus has an article. But that doesn't make every team that has ever played the sport notable. Lack of information is exactly the reason why its not notable. That is how notability works, if you can't find sources then the topic isn't notable. In order to be notable you must be able to meet WP:GNG. Please read WP:GNG where it says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" So your example of just a small note about being national champion isn't enough because that would be a passing mention. It has to be significant and in depth articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Minnesota Bandolier is not just any team, it is the US champion in this sport. A national champion in a world sport IS notable. What you are talking about is verifiability. A subject may very well be notable in it self even if the information saying that it is so is perhaps not verifiable. If you want to delete this article because of a lack of verifiability, that is what you shall claim. The notability is unquestionable. Bandy boy (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again please read those pages. In order to be notable you need to have sources. Those sources have to be verifiable. On Wikipedia in order to be deemed notable you must have sources that are written in depth about the subject matter. You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what notability is in Wikipedia terms. On Wikipedia notability is gauged by the amount of coverage the topic receives in sources. It doesn't matter the popularity of a sport, if no one writes about the team then the it isn't notable. In other words no one took note of the team. (ie they didn't write about them) -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * i have read them and I know what notability is. It seems you don't. If I write about a president of the United States, he or she is clearly noteable, but if everything in the article is totally made up, including the name of the president, then it can't be verified. In that case, the article should get deleted, not because it is not noteable – because a president of the United States always is – but because the information is bogus and therefore unverifiable. So if you want to delete Minneapolis Bandolier because of a lack of noteability, you have to argue why the US bandy champions are not noteable. You can't just refer to the fact that you find the information to be unverifiable. Bandy boy (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then clearly you haven't read them because they specifically say "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources" and "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two Swedish sources and one Russian source isn't good enough as reliable secondary sources. I see. What would it take for a source to be reliable? Does it have to be American? Bandy boy (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It doesn't get coverage in the Minneapolis Star Tribune let alone any other publication. Fails to meet WP:GNG which requires published sources. Although Wikipedia tries to reduce geographical bias and present a worldwide picture, that doesn't mean that topics must be covered equally all around the whole world (we don't devote as much space to gridiron football in Laos as in the USA, or as much attention to Latvian sumo wrestlers as we do to Japanese, because these things do not have the infrastructure that attracts media interest). Maybe it would be possible to write a general article on Bandy in the USA if there are any sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a significant team in the sport, event though it is hardly known. Staglit (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bandy, in a new section titled "United States". NorthAmerica1000 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find that do be a very good idea. If we should clutter the main article with information of the hundreds of bandy clubs there are in every country where bandy is played, the article would be too long. There should be a section about the United States in the article, but if this absurd deletion request is made real, the information about bandy clubs in the US should at least be in an article called "List of bandy clubs in the United States" or something like that. Bandy boy (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am sorry, Bandy boy. You are clearly passionate about this, but I can find no evidence of coverage of this team that would meet WP:GNG.  The only sources in the article are primary, and I do not see non-trivial coverage (in fact, there's really no coverage of any kind) in Google news, news archive, Highbeam, etc.   Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not on personal preference. Resolute 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: what you are talking about is verifiability. When a subject is covered by sources, it can be verified. That has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Bandy boy (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am talking about notability. We judge notability by the preponderance of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Certainly we can verify this team exists due to the primary sources.  But the lack of coverage in secondary sources argues against notability of this team. Resolute 15:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two Swedish sources and one Russian source are obviously not deemed as secondary sources by you. Is that because they have bandy as their common theme? Then I suppose all sources about football are primary sources if they are from football themed websites. Oh my. Bandy boy (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are secondary sources, but they do not represent significant coverage. Two of the three aren't even about the Minneapolis Bandolier, and the third is a simple directory listing. These are all trivial mentions. Resolute 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States. (I've stricken my previous !vote above). NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States as no indication of notability. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to American Bandy League, if this is the premier league of American Bandy then that's the page this article should be merged to, it would be more encyclopedic. Elassint  Hi 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge See Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2014 (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.