Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller sport in India


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Roller sport in India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that this is notable enough for a stand alone article. Nothing here to merge elsewhere, just a couple of sentences and an external link. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  15:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article was significantly expanded after this AfD nomination. NorthAmerica1000 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep see below No criticism of the nomination (the article was in pretty poor shape at the time), but post-expansion this pretty clearly meets WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲 水  08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't seen any other "Roller sport in..." articles to judge by, not sure how we judge GNG against this, to be honest. I am genuinely curious here: would be also have Bicycling in Mexico or Jogging in France? The closest parallel I can find is Skateboarding in China which I think is problematic and full of original research. I'm open minded, but not convinced that the many thousands of "sport" in "country" articles would be so obviously notable.  Perhaps the unusual exception, but not all and not just because there are some articles that talk about the topic in a general way. At this point, I'm thinking this should be part of some other article (general interest sports in India type article) and not stand alone.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I've nothing against a merge to Sport in India, which I think is the most obvious target for a redirect. Yunshui 雲 水 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sport in India. As a matter of fact, after a few minutes thought I think a merge would actually be preferable to having a separate article - changing !vote accordingly. Yunshui 雲 水  11:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a whole family of "Sport in India" at Template:Sport in India §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of those are probably unnecessary content forks, though - Squash in India, Korfball in India, Handball in India and others are poorly-referenced and provide little encyclopedic information beyond, "This sport is played in India". Yunshui 雲 水 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of those I understand like Cricket in India, but Table tennis in India and Handball in India? Fluffy. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't judge the notability of the topic by the current state of the article -- Table tennis and Handball are quite big and I'm sure there are more sources, just no Wikipedia editor is interested in them. I have no opinion on Roller sport though. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to exaggerate too much, but Beer pong is also very popular, but we don't have an article on it for each country. "Popular" doesn't automatically mean an activity is notable enough for a separate article when differentiated indiscriminately by national borders.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh, did I say popular? Just see Kamlesh Mehta (one example) to see why Table Tennis in India can be expanded properly or Dipika Pallikal for squash. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But you are missing the point. By that logic every "sport" in "country" should exist.  It doesn't address why any "sport" in "country" is actually notable.  Having a notable person play the sport isn't enough.  That doesn't establish notability, only that it exists, as that notability isn't inherited.  Notability isn't just references that talk about the subject, but why it is important (notable) in that particular country.  Importance, not existence.   Otherwise, it is a rats nest of unmaintained articles on sports that simply exist in various geographical areas.    Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTE says: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity", so the criteria for a standalone article is neither importance, nor existence; it's the General Notability Guideline. This means that every "sport" in "country" article should not exist, but every "sport" in "country" that fulfils the GNG can have an article. The Discoverer (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're talking yourself into a circle. That is my point.  Having a few articles that talk about a sport within a country isn't enough to pass GNG.  Some examples are obvious, like baseball, NFL football and basketball in the US, football and cricket in India (and the UK of course).  This isn't at that level, not even in the grey area.  It is simply a sport that is played in that country and has a couple of articles mentioning it.  So what.  That isn't enough to meet the spirit or letter of GNG.  And the key word in your reply is "necessarily".  Just using common sense, a good start is "is that sport shown on national TV in that country?" or even the low, low bar of "is that sport taught in schools?".  WHAT makes this notable?  It surely isn't the few references that just talk about how skating EXISTS.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No Dennis, you are missing the point, I've shown why a particular sport is notable in a particular region/country. At the risk of OSE, in what way is this any different from Association football in Guadeloupe or Association football in the Turks and Caicos Islands or Bodybuilding in Australia. There are some topics that have significant coverage in reliable sources, thereby they are notable. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown sources that prove GNG, they are just talking about the activity of "skating, specifically in India". I can find lots of course that talk about beer pong here in the US, but that doesn't prove Beer pong in the United States is a notable topic.  Anyway, I will let the closer decide, this is just going in circles.  You think articles talking about skating == notability, I think you are misreading WP:GNG.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are clearly misreading things here -- I have never argued for keeping this article anywhere. I'm just against you lumping other articles in without doing a proper check on those subjects -- you seem to think that something passes notability only if it is the most popular sport, but that's simply not the case, we go by what sources say, plain and simple. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. That is not what I said.  2. If you are just arguing academics, please take it elsewhere as it doesn't belong on a discussion about this article.  It isn't helpful.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not arguing academics, you're the one that brought all the other articles into this discussion, and when you do that, you are going to get responses to it. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: As Dennis Brown says, we need to see if the sport S is really notable in a country C and then worth creating an article about. In this case, I won't consider roller sports any notable in India. Of course, this is a comparative thing. Cricket in India or Football in India are more appropriate topics for Indian sports. I am incrementalist at many times and then one can argue that indiscriminate information of rollers in India is available and a long article is already created. And that's when we have to be comparative; compare roller sports in other countries and compare other sports in India. As current state of article goes, it has no references or external links to maybe some book which deals with the topic or maybe even an editorial on the sport's status in India. It just mentions notable players and venues. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very new article, informative.. Expanded by the original creator just everyday. Merging may degrade the recognition of this sport, it seems notable to for having own page.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It has relisted twice and has 4 tiny paragraphs, so I don't think it is being expanded daily. Interesting isn't the same as notable, just as using the word "rollerblade" in an article isn't the same as significant coverage. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  08:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  07:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article was expanded after being nominated for deletion. If not independently notable, a merge to Sport in India would be a functional Alternative to deletion (WP:ATD). The Sport in India article presently has almost nothing about roller sport in India except for one mention of roller skating. NorthAmerica1000 07:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two bronze medals and one other tidbit that could probably me merged (ie: a paragraph), so that is a reasonable way to WP:PRESERVE that data, while still preventing articles on minor sports within each country. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  11:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sport in India is quite a big article; doesn't that justify having smaller child articles to help manage the size of the parent artice? The Discoverer (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the topic is notable, but not just because it is too large. If the topic isn't notable (roller sports, for example), then the decision to include or not into the large article should not be decided here at AFD, but instead on the talk page of the larger article.  The two bronze medal winners have their own articles, which is enough to satisfy WP:PRESERVE.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  03:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge, to Sport in India, and move on to another such article to merge (Squash in India, Korfball in India, Handball in India, etc.). (Do similar with that Skateboarding in China mess, too). Even after "significant expansion" since the start of this AfD, there's not enough material here for a content fork like this. See WP:SUMMARY.  This entire stub's real content could be compressed to a single paragraph there, which is generally what a summary article like "Sport in India" should have on each entry to begin with, whether or not there are  articles for them. There shouldn't be a main article for a separate sport in India unless (as with, say, Cricket in India) its entry at that summary article is over-long.  The "Sport in India" article itself, as a whole, is  long, by its very nature as a summary listing.  We do not have or need a separate "Sport-name-here in Country-name-here" article for every imaginable combination. There are far too many such pseudo-articles already (Australia is a particular mess, with topics further forked to "Women in Sport-name-here in Australia" articles filled with fluff citations to passing mentions of non-notable competitions and competitors.)  PS: "Merging may degrade the recognition of this sport" is a non-argument, per WP:ADVOCACY: Wikipedia's job is encyclopedically cataloguing things that the sources in the real world tell us are notable, not trying to promote topics to greater heights of notability by ginning up articles to advance their "recognition".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Golf in India, Shooting in India and Chess in India, the three articles started by me in May 2012, have eventually, after several months, developed into proper articles (with the contributions of other editors). Is it possible to give this some time? The Discoverer (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BARE status, and has potential. This AfD was launched too soon. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sport in India - Strongly disagree with the above, first WP:BARE is not a policy but an essay and second this article isn't worthy of it. People have looked for sources and it the topic of "Rollersports in India"" doesn't come up, "Rollersports" in "India" comes up from time to time. There is nothing to suggest this subsection of sports is notable enough for its own article.SPACKlick (talk) 10:59, 14 July 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.