Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sussex Thunder


 * 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. –MuZemike 00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sussex Thunder

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently non-notable British American Football team. Nothing other than a sprinkling of coverage. A google web search turns up a BBC News article and 3 of articles on the Daily Mirror's American Football blog (all in 2010). A google news search turns up little beyond articles (with inconsistent regularity) in local newspapers. Google book search seems to return a title that uses Wikipedia as its source. Perhaps the following quote from the Google news summary of an article (Miami Herald article on a Miami Dolphins match in London) sums the up Sussex Thunder's notability "One, the Sussex Thunder, plays in front of crowds that team chairman Tony Miller guessed at "30 or 40 people."". Searching around for photos suggests to me that 30 or 40 is generous.

A second issue is that since I cleared out sections that were purely advertising in nature and/or cut and paste from the team's website, there is little of encyclopaedic value left. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - if the statement that they now play in the premier division of the British American Football League is accurate, they were a team at the top level of the sport in their country, and are therefore notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:According to the website of their league they are in "Division 1 South". For completeness, that site states that the Premier League teams are Bristol Aztecs, Coventry Jets, Farnham Knights, London Blitz, London Warriors and Tamworth Phoenix. Pit-yacker (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources given. If independent reliable sources are found and it looks good, I'd happily change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: Found this at ESPN along with this BBC source and that's about it. Gave up at page 12 of an ordinary Google search for "sussex thunder football". Pmresource (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:RELISTINGISEVIL I say call it "no consensus"--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - All Ghits are unreliable except for that one BBC link. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per "The Bushranger"'s rationale and per sources provided by Pmresource. The article's subject is notable. --Cavarrone (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst, I'm probably inclined to agree with User:Paulmcdonald that there is no consensus (possibly due to the lack of interest in (or anyone who knows about) the subject of the article). As far as I can tell, BushRanger's rationale was incorrect. They are not in the top league of play in this country.
 * Even then, I can no longer find any assertion in policies that sports teams that play in the top league in their country are automatically notable. IHMO, such a situation would probably be more sensible.
 * The policy in question in essences infers an equal notability on all teams that play in a top league. That means a team who plays in a minority interest league such as the BAFL premier (e.g. London Blitz) (or any other even more minority interest sport) is equated with a team that plays in a league of world notability such as the FA Premier League (e.g. Chelsea F.C.) or even the NFL regardless of whether the team itself is actually of note.  Such a comparison is more or less like comparing apples with peas.  The problem is, a more accurate comparison of notability for any British American Football team is with a Sunday League (aka Pub League) soccer team rather than a FA Premier League or NFL team.
 * As far as I can tell Pmresource was demonstrating the paucity of sources on this. If this team is really notable, where are the match reports? They dont even manage consistent coverage in local rags. some Sunday League teams do at least manage a consistent level of regular coverage in the local press. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment erm, the first "source" mentioned above relates to some dude's fantasy football team and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - while the top level of American football in the UK might just about be claimed to be notable, I don't believe the lower levels are. As mentioned above, teams like this don't get any significant coverage even in their local press and are far less notable even than teams at the 10th level of football (soccer) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I definitely don't agree with the notion that a team at the top level of any sport in any country is inherently notable. I wouldn't expect to see an article on here about a team at the top level of cricket in Norway, baseball in Uganda, or pelota in Saudi Arabia..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? (WP:CSB) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely that's because notability isn't inherited. If a sport in a country has little or no notability, its absurd to automatically confer notability on certain teams just because they play in the "top flight" in that country, and/or because the sport in question is notable in other countries.
 * I would suggest that the (it seems former) poilicy in question was intended as a general "yard-stick" to combat malicious afd. It would certainly be correct to assume that a team such as Chelsea (or one in the NFL) was notable.  However, such teams are notable in their own right. Not through the rather strange logic that American Football is notable in the US and top flight teams in sports are generally the most notable, therefore a top flight American Football team in the UK must also be inhererntly notable. I fail to see how a team who fails to maintain regular coverage in even local papers and whose own chairman, perhaps generously, describes typical match crowds as "30 or 40 people" could ever be thought of as notable.
 * Fact is, I think your link to WP:CSB is self defeating. In my opinion there is a systematic bias conferring an unwarranted notability onto some things in the UK because their cousins elsewhere in the world are notable.  The UK still has its own distinct culture. Part of that culture difference means that things that are a big part of everyday life in other countries (such as American Football, College sports, etc.) have nothing beyond extreme niche interest.  I would say it is a fair bet that if you went to the average High Street in the UK and surveyed people about American Football in the UK upwards of 95% (possibly even 99%+) would struggle to name a single team.  Ironically, the handful of execeptions that are likely to come up in such a survey (e.g. London Monarchs) are generally defunct.  Pit-yacker (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2011 (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.