Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chevron Action Flash

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 with no prejudice against recreation at a latter date if notability can be established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron Action Flash

disputed PROD for NN-team, delete Cornell Rockey 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable sources can be produced to confirm notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an ultimate frisbee team. Also WP:RS, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this entry. This entry is the first for a UK ultimate team and one of only four entries for Ultimate teams#International i.e. teams outside the USA, of which there are thousands in existence. Until more teams and national associations create entries it is difficult to demonstrate the notability of this article. The entry on Ultimate (sport) gives the impression that Ultimate is only played in North America, which is far from the case. This article describes the longest established, one of the most successful and internationally known teams in the UK. If high profile Ultimate teams are not suitable for inclusion that is understandable, in which case all should be deleted. Apologies for any bad wikiquette. This is my first discussion. Robmitch 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Talk[reply]
Delete It's a minor minor minor league sport. Non notable. It's about as noteworthy as the local boys softball team. Tomstdenis 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In which case, delete all Ultimate-related pages. Presumably the presence of Ultimate (sport) establishes the noteworthiness of the sport. Ultimate is an Official sport of the World Games as are ten-pin bowling, ju-jitsu, karate, korfball, netball, racquetball, rugby, squash and sumo. The Ultimate Players Association has around 25,000 registered members in the USA and there are tens of thousands of players across the rest of the world. Robmitch 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Soccer (Football to the rest of the world) is also in Wikipedia. Doesn't mean the local kids league should be in Wikipedia. Ask yourself this, why is it important that anyone know about this particular ultimate team? You're confusing notability with character or standing. Speaking as someone who voted against keeping a vanity page put up about myself, there is a difference between the two. Just because you're (or in this case the team is) not notable enough to warrant a wiki page doesn't mean they're bad people or suck or whatever. It just means that in an ENCYCLOPEDIA it's not useful information. Tomstdenis 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Happy to accept those points, and if entries for individual Ultimate teams are to be considered non-notable, then fine, delete this and the other entries for Ultimate teams. This particular team is the longest standing in the UK and has an international reputation. Perhaps that is "character or standing" as you suggest, in which case fine, delete it (and the others!). I just wanted to give some context to ensure an informed decision could be made. I read your earlier 'Delete' vote as an objection to Ultimate as a "minor minor minor league sport. Non notable" and I considered this worth refuting. Reading it again, perhaps you accept the notability of the sport, but not of this team.
    - Comment Bingo. I'm not arguing that we keep/delete other pages. I just picked this page at random from the AfD archive, read the page and offered my vote. Should other non-notable ultimate team pages be deleted? OF COURSE! Nominated them for an AfD if you haven't already. Again, please don't construe "non-notable" as a negative character quality. The vast majority of things people hold dear (family, possessions, etc) are non-notable in the context of an encyclopedia. Having to admit to the world that you yourself are non-notable is most fun hehehehehe ;-) Tomstdenis 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment ...but telling the people you'll be playing against at World Championships next year that they are non-notable is likely to be less than fun, therefore I'll let others mominate other teams for an AfD! Of course I accept your points on non-notability. If I come across as emotionally invested in keeping this entry, I really am not. Perfectly happy for the decision to be taken in the usual way, by the published criteria. Robmitch 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For information, I credited myself earlier as the author of this entry. In fact, I was alerted to the fact that a stub existed, created by someone outside the team, some time ago and I added to it to substantially create the current entry. That's not of interest, but just for clarity as you mentioned vanity pages. Robmitch 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be one of the most important Ultimate teams in the UK. We already have pages for US teams. --Liface 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not establish notability in the context of the sport (playing at highest level in the UK but no explanation of what the 'highest level is), nor offer any sources. If this can be changed, sources especially, my decision may change. Nuttah68 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.