Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle Wildcats


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle Wildcats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

University team that does not meet notability requirements. There is no indication that they pass the guidelines of WP:GNG--I looked--and as a non-professional team there is no inherent notability. Other guidelines for organizations, for instance WP:NCLUB, also do not indicate that this club would be notable. There's a couple more of these, such as Birmingham Eagles, which I'd rather establish on a case-by-case basis rather than make a massive AfD; it is entirely possible that some old(er) club is in fact notable because it has generated non-trivial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. This one hasn't. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - NUIHC is the 3rd oldest club extant in UK University Ice Hockey (after Oxford and Cambridge). It was the club first to introduce mixed gender equality in to a contact sport. The club's Wiki article is currently under review such that it attempt to meet the strict guidelines flagged up by other users in the guise of officiency. We'd rather that it wasn't deleted on what appears to be a whim after it has recently been undergoing updates.


 * The editor who requested that the article be considered for deletion was previously content with its existence as they had heavily edited it only a number of hours beforehand. It was only when these edits were questioned/reworked that the AFD application was made.


 * Please bear in mind this from Newcastle Wildcat's (Talk)


 * "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


 * This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


 * This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.


 * This article was accepted on 24 October 2008 by reviewer Oo7565 (talk · contribs)."


 * - IanMelb (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb


 * Just a quick note, but neither of these are things that would absolutely keep an article. Something can still fall within the scope of a WikiProject but still fail notability guidelines. These boxes are standard for all articles and just help draw the attention of other editors to the article. As far as it being accepted through AfC, this doesn't really mean anything. It's actually fairly common for an article to be accepted by someone, only for it to be nominated a short while later and deleted because it failed one of the various notability standards. I'd like to say that it doesn't happen, but it happens far more often than I'd like to say. I don't really have an opinion on the article one way or the other, but I wanted to pop in and say that the existence of a WP box and that it got accepted through AfC are not really valid arguments for AfD. As far as the other editor making edits before bringing it to AfD, this is also standard. It just shows that the editor tried to improve it before nominating it for deletion. Does it mean that the article isn't notable? It can still be proven, but it must be through arguments that show that this group passes WP:NHOCKEY, not that the article was accepted through AfC or was edited by the same person who is currently trying to delete it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this we appreciate the guidance and are doing our best to make the article conform to policy. There may be times when an editor makes the edits before AfD but if you check the modification history and comments it does seem to have occurred after someone got 'miffed' that their destructive edits weren't fully appreciated IanMelb (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb


 * From the opening AfD justification - "Other guidelines for organizations, for instance WP:NCLUB, also do not indicate that this club would be notable."
 * Whilst WP:NCLUB seems primarily designed for Soccer, it does contain:
 * Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)?
 * YES – the club can be assumed to be notable


 * Not only has the Club played in a National Cup, it also played a founding role in setting up the National Organisation (the British Universities Ice Hockey Association) that administrates that competition.
 * - IanMelb (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb
 * Actually using NCLUBS (which really isn't relevant to the discussion here), the national cup would be British Championship. That table compares professional teams, not university teams.  Ravendrop 19:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, by definition, as this is a University Club, it is unable to compete at the professional level stated. It does, however, compete at the highest level available to it and has, in fact, won that competition. There is precedent for including competitions of this type, ref US College Competitions. IanMelb (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb


 * Delete I can't find any independent sources for this club sport team. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please assist with how you would define 'independent' in this instance, or at least explain how the sport's governing body is not independent from the club? Kind regards IanMelb (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb
 * The governing body is not independent because it governs the club, basically. Their publications etc. are going to mention the club because the club is part of it, and as such don't indicate notability. "Sources" refers to such things as books and newspapers. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The club passes, by extension, the first criteria in WP:NCLUB (which was quoted in the opening AfD statement) for notability, as such, we now need to prove the club's existence via an 'independent' source.  It's a strange circumstance when, say, the word of a journalist, is taken at higher value than that of a governing body... IanMelb (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

Here are a few of independent sources from Newspapers, (now included in the article):

IanMelb (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb
 * Chronicle 25 Nov 2009
 * Chronicle 18 Nov 2009
 * Journal 22 Oct 2009
 * Journal 22 Jan 2009

and some more:


 * Examiner Jan 28 2008
 * Eurohockey Club Listing
 * Sky TV 27 Feb 2012
 * Sky TV 18 Feb 2013

Two major broadcasting company references to the club, five regional newspaper articles mentioning it, and an entry in an online, major European Hockey information database. There's probably at least one more 'salacious' newspaper entry from the late 90's/early 00's regarding the time when, during one heated Stan Calvert game, a player from Northumbria University threw his stick in to the crowd injuring a spectator. We believe that this incident attracted regional, if not national, newspaper coverage, but this may require some physical research (e.g. fiche records) as the newspaper archives do not seem to be easily searchable for that period. IanMelb (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

Wikipedia's guidance on the determining the notability of organizations has this section:
 * Non-commercial organizations
 * Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

IanMelb (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb

Addition of citation showing the Club's involvement in founding the activity's National governing body IanMelb (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb
 * Times Higher Education 4Jul 2003