Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal team

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a list written as an article. In either case, it fails both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN with a lack of multiple sources of significant coverage that discuss this topic or grouping. The various teams identified in the article are never talked about in sources across different sports as a single group, nor is the term "ideal team" used in English in this context. While the grouping might make sense logically, until reliable sources talk about the grouping, this is WP:OR. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about a neglected topic. Good faith discussions to salvage this article at Talk:Ideal team showed it would be worthwhile to continue the talk here at AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this term WP:OR? If you mean Dream team, All-star team or All-League team then move the article. If this is a foreign language term (the refs seem to be in foreign languages) find a better word.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Dream team, All-star team, All-League, All-Time, and All-Decade, etc. have very specific meanings, but this article tries to group those different concepts together when no sources have ever done so.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The problem is that I don't think a common all-encompassing term exists for this concept. I would agree that it's OR to decide to group these and title them in this way. As I said on the article talk page, I don't envision users looking for this page - certainly not with this name. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be WP:OR to me. References are in another language, so hard to tell. Assuming good faith, it's probably not a good fit for English Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and listify. I agree the phrase "ideal team" is a neologism, they are commonly called All-Star Teams (in North America, at least). As such, List of All-Star Teams could have value. Reso lute 15:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"All-Star team" typically refers to one that participates in an All-Star Game. The AfD article seems to be OR for "all-star teams" that never play in an actual game. Still, its entry criteria is unclear. How does Gold Glove Awards or Silver Slugger Award qualify when they are not the best overall MLB players, but rather the best offensive and defensive players, respectively. What about List of San Diego Chargers 50th Anniversary Team or 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team, which are teams composed of top players? I dont see how WP:LSC can be met without some contrived, long-winded explanation that is never discussed in sources.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "All-Star Team" have long had multiple uses. i.e.: NHL All-Star Game, which you refer to, but also NHL All-Star Team, which is the concept that this article attempts to discuss. Baseball doesn't really have a parallel, choosing instead to create different teams for offence and defense. There is a loose fit there, but not precise. The San Diego Chargers' 50th anniversary team would fit the scope, imo, as it is a "mythical all-star team" (how the first NHL All-Star teams were described by the press), simply using a different time scale. (incidentally, "List of San Diego Chargers' 50th anniversary team"? That is some awful grammar!). I do get your point, however. There would be a challenge finding material that ties the overall concept together. Reso lute 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Set index articles are appropriate for describing terms that have the same name, such as anything with "All-Star team" in it. Mixing in other teams that dont have "All-Star" in their name is inappropriate without reliable sources that discuss them together. As it is, there alreay exists articles for All-star and All-star game. The concept of an All-Star team should be mention in one of those, probably All-star, not with another standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I support renaming the article to "All-league", it seems a good translation of "equipo ideal" and an actual English term. "All-star team" and "Dream team" are different concepts, so I oppose using those titles. About notability, it doesn't fail WP:LISTN because it's not an arbitrary list ("list of actors named Brian who like pizza"), but an article about a concept, with some examples of it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: NaBUru38 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is not the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD and thinks it is silly to point out who created it to the closing admin, as if the comments made by the creator of the page should mean any less. --Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul: The practice is standard per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator...or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." {{Page creator}} specifically exists for this purpose.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't oppose creating articles/lists on "All-Star" or "All-League," but I would say my sense is that this article is trying to roll all of those (possibly with other items like All-Time teams) together into one concept. Rikster2 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that "all-time" and "all-decade" teams are the same thing. The only difference is the time period the all-star team is being picked from. Dream Team is a different concept, however. Reso lute 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not a list at all, so WP:LISTN is the wrong measure. But I would argue that the topic fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not organized as a table or a bullets list, but I would argue it is a list. The opening paragraph is an unsourced, arbitrary definition of the grouping based on OR. It doesn't explain how the "ideal team" concept started, it's history, or pro and cons arguments of such teams. It is merely an enumeration of "ideal team" examples across various sports. In any event, notability—either LISTN or GNG—is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trying to roll all of those together into one concept", because the concept is just one, as Resolute says. The article "doesn't explain how the "ideal team" concept started, it's history, or pro and cons arguments of such teams", I agree, so please expand it. I just began writing it, other Wikipedians can help to expand it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR....William 15:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR WP:NEO – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. And throw in some WP:NEO. oknazevad (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. You can't just translate something and expect it qualifies for an article. Articles already exist as mentioned in this article, I imagine anyone wanting to know the "dream team" would go to the dream team article, and so on. C 679 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ideal team is not a thing. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. I am not aware of the term "ideal team" used in any major sport, at least not in North America, which is a major portion of the article. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba's nomination. Fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (absence of substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources) and the specific notability guidelines for lists, if in fact it is a "list," per WP:NLIST (absence of substantial coverage in multiple, indepdendent, reliable sources that address the subject as a group. I also have many of the same concerns regarding original research per WP:OR and synthesis per WP:SYNTH that other editors have mentioned above. Bottom line: the term "ideal team" apparently does not have widespread usage or meaning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be WP:OR, and could be because I'm North American, but I've never heard anyone use the term before. Zappa O Mati 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete Not that I think this AfD needs another !vote but this could have been speedily deleted out of early consensus after the wave of February 7th deletes. The article duplicates the fundamental idea of an All-star team and does not provide any sources for what is seemingly original research. Mkdw ^talk 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not snow delete yet, the two keep commentators do have a valid arguement, and I think that article is salvageable. I rather prefer a move, delete the WP:NOR violating redirect and rename as All-Star team or a similar term, which I think this article was meant to be in the first place. Secret ^account 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from keeping a few trivial mentions of All-Star teams, it really doesnt matter much if the article is moved or just started from scratch. Removing NOR material wipes out most of this, and the few sources cited only provided WP:SYNTH material anyways. While this article might not stay, NaBUru38 seems to have spurred a possible void in WP regarding coverage of general All-Star teams.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and NEO. Sorry, there's just nothing here. --BDD (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (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.