Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water volleyball


 * 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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Water volleyball

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

COPYVIO from  Created by SPA, likely to promote book. Rhadow (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable and the game has been covered in many reliable media stories. However, I do have serious concerns about the sourcing as I am seeing a number of likely sock puppet accounts adding in references in various articles, all linked to one particular self-publishing writer. In this article no-one seems to have spotted that for two years we've had an ostensibly serious journal being referenced twice, when Water Volleyball Journal is nothing but a home-made wordpress blog with no significant content. The same goes for the so-called World Association of Water Volleyball Clubs, another cheap wordpress blog created by the same person/sock. All this rubbish needs to go, but not the article itself. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's highly confused. Sockpuppetry on WP has nothing to do with external source reliability. Nor does whether something is published with WordPress (many of the world's most-used websites are; it's simply a content management system).  I agree those sources are bogus, because they're self-published, of course.  But so far you've actually just provided a deletion rationale, under cover of a keep with just vague assertions about RS without actually providing any.
 * You are quite right, unsigned. I apologise if I caused confusion, or failed to provide WP:RS to demonstrate a reason to keep. I must have wrongly assumed this one was just so obvious I didn't need to. So, let me offer: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and even this, or this. I don't think I ever asserted that Wordpress blogs are unreliable sources. I explicitly listed two used as references that obviously are, containing as they do just three or four pages each, no organisational details nor any worthwhile content or evidence of continued use, which you would expect from 'journals' or 'associations'. What is weird is that this page was created by an editor who has been creating nonsense pages elsewhere - but not in this instance, I feel. It'll never become an Olympic sport, but I'm sorry if I muddied the water (pool?) by bringing the SPA issue up. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If you have a way to recast the article without copypasta, I think that would be great. How about you turn some of that outside reading into inline citations, I would be happy to turn this into a speedy keep.  Rhadow (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)  BTW, I found another way to fake a journal, too!
 * Keep, and admonish the nominator to do WP:BEFORE. Numerous RS are easy to find in seconds: Google News, Books , Scholar .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is clearly notable. Current state of article is irrelevant, as is who created it. Per the above citations, and many more, it's clearly a notable topic. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:VENUE, WP:BEFORE, and WP:N. A closing person may want to consider speedying as a clear WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2017 (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.