Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagga Wagga Floor Hockey League (WWFHL)


 * 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   delete. Shimeru (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga Floor Hockey League (WWFHL)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested speedy (from a probable sockpuppet, but still...) This is a non-notable organization, which the author of the page itself admits has no media coverage whatsoever on the talk page. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Not a single one of the "references" is a reliable independent source. Could well be a speedy deletion (A7), but certainly deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. David V Houston (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Local league with no independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mega-Strong Save! All sources are reliable and credible and you can all go get fucked!124.176.84.64 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 124.176.84.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - While your opinion is welcome, please remember to strive to remain civil. Thank you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest to the above anonymous editor that explaining why he/she thinks the sources are reliable will be more likely to persuade the closing administrator to keep the article than telling us to "get fucked". At present the only sources cited are a facebook page and the web pages of the league and its members. None of these is an independent reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete I believe the editors and administrators are clearly over-reacting. Too many itchy-delete fingers going here, in other words. This seems to be a legitimate floor hockey league that is in throws of birth. And there has been significant expansion and growth since the article was first written. Also, the fact that there has been little or no media coverage of the Wagga Wagga League has absolutely no relevance here. Floor hockey, street hockey, ball hockey, roller hockey, road hockey, and beer league ice hockey by their very nature have little media coverage, other than local sources, but enjoy great popularity and hunderds of thousands of participants worldwide. I myself was one of the founders of a street and roller hockey league in Southern California back in the 1970s which morphed into several well known and respected leagues state and nationwide. But we began as a local league of only 3 teams. Here is some advice for the Wagga Wagga league. Instead of a stand- alone article,(which I think should not be deleted anyway), perhaps it could be included in an article about the larger geographical/municipal area or general article about other floor hockey/street hockey leagues in their area, NSW, and perhaps, the country.  And as to "scalper's" comments...it would do you well to remember sir, that deletions are some of the most un-civil of actions yet devised by the mind of man.Garagehero (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the comments made in the above post are not arguments for keeping, and some of them are actually arguments for deletion. If it is a "league that is in throws of birth" then it has probably not yet achieved notability: time for an article if and when it does so. The statement "the fact that there has been little or no media coverage ... has absolutely no relevance here" completely misses the point of Wikipedia's notability criteria: the fact that there is little or nor coverage is exactly what is relevant to those criteria. As for the suggestion of including coverage in another article, while the standard of notability required is somewhat lower than for its own article, I see no evidence that even that has been demonstrated. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  SAVE!!! This page is one of the more established pages i've seen on the net. All references are working and are relevant. The information is well structured and is continuing to expand. Thus i vote the page should stay.
 * Delete No evidence of any notability. The sock puppetry/canvassing in this discussion is pretty obvious. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A five year old club that is "still in the throes of birth" is unlikely to meet notability requirements, and indeed not a single independent source is provided. Does your club garner international attention (per WP:CLUB, or do your athletes compete at the highest amateur level, or the professional level (per WP:ATHLETE)? If so, it should be easy to provide a newspaper source confirming this. If not, it fails notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE, PART 2 Let me clarify my earlier message. While it has been, when first posted as an article, "in the throws of birth", it is now a legitimate full fledged league in NSW, which in itself, should qualify it as a Wikipedia entry. There are many bogus entries here on Wikipedia, much less deserving than Wagga Wagga, yet because they are a pet project of some of the admins or editors, they remain and expand. And while it is encumbent on the Waggas to provide links to any coverage, the notability criteria has been met, in my opinion, by the notoriety the league has achieved in its own geographical area and/or municipality. It should also be encumbent on the admins/editors of Wikipedia to find a balance between the world of make-believe and cyberspace, the digital internet arena which is their domain, and the actual physical world of real acts, persons, athletic contests, and notability in the real world, which is the domain of the Waggas. Thats my opinion and I hope you folks decide to keep it.Garagehero (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is a subjective concept in the real world, but not in wikipedia. Does your this Club satisfy the requirement of the general notability guideline of appearing in multiple reliable secondary sources? I would not expect google news to turn up any results, but Wagga Wagga is a big town and I expect it has its own regional newspaper? If it satisfies notability then I'm sure it will appear in such a publication. Could you provide us with something like that, Garagehero or others? Otherwise it really has to be deleted due to a lack of reliable sources. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this Yeti - fair call I guess, I will get some media coverage for the WWFHL in the coming weeks and then link them to the article, and then try again. How do I retry again? Do I just create a new page or should I link it to this discussion somehow? And just FYI, I have no idea who garagehero is. Thanks for your help garagehero. --Shadsmabucket (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)]]]
 * Strong delete no coverage in gnews . LibStar (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in, for example The Daily Advertiser. StAnselm (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2010 (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.