Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies (2nd nomination)

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. This was endorsed at DRV only a day or two ago. Restoring it to mainspace is an abuse of our procedures and disruptive, Do not recreate unless a draft has been approved by DRV. Deleted G4 Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies[edit]

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

Procedural AfD. This article was previously deleted and the deletion was upheld under review. Sources have been added since then, but the question is whether or not the article currently has any notability it was deemed not to have under the previous discussion. Attempts have been made to establish inclusion criteria for Roller Derby at WP:NSPORT, but nothing concrete has been established at this time. Trusilver 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per original reasons. The team is has not competed in any international bouts. The team does not have any members on the national team competing at the roller derby world cup. The team appears to have competed in zero notable intercounty bouts. (As roller derby does not have an established hierarchy to determine quality levels of play, bout notability and attendance are ways of assessing that.) As a league, the article does not appear to be the proposed guidelines for roller derby. Beyond that, the article probably does not meet WP:GNG. Same reasons as the original AfD: They have not been fixed in this article.
Comment: User:Dualus has said he was improving this article based on an e-mail to the gendergap list requesting it be fixed. Incorrect. The e-mail was dated 11 October 2011, written by me, and read: I don't know if this has been mentioned on the list before, but there is a roller league derby article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies . I don't particularly care about the outcome either way, but there is an issue of setting precedent for future roller derby articles that may be nominated and that's where I care: However it ends up, it would be nice to have it make sense. So yeah, that. :) End quote. --LauraHale (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the only discussion of roller derby on the gendergap mailing list. Dualus (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It absolutely is, until you can share the e-mail that you're referring to. You won't, and I've searched all my sent e-mails to see where else I might have mentioned it. I will repeat: This is the e-mail the User:Dualus has referred to multiple times and it does not advocate improving the article to keep it from deletion. --LauraHale (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - [1], [2], etc. Do you think it would help if you and I had a talk about this on Tinychat? Dualus (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Links do not support the claim that you were improving this one as it was mentioned on the list. Links do not mention this article. If you invite me to privately chat with you again, I will report you to WP:ANI for WP:HOUND. I will include the fact that you showed up to IRC to continue create drama involving me.--LauraHale (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, I invite interested parties to read the links for themselves. How do you propose that we resolve the animosity issues here? You have been canvassing people with whom you have no interactions independent of your interactions with me, and you nominated one of my recently created articles on a completely unrelated topic for deletion, then blanked three sections of it. I feel that you are being retributive and wonder whether you would be willing to participate in a third party mediation session, perhaps with Sarah mediating? Dualus (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG with multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources,[3][4][5][6] the first three of which certainly meet WP:CORPDEPTH. This article was properly restored from incubation after the DRV had closed by SarahStierch, an independent editor. Dualus (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, please place it in my user space. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Dualus (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete although they are reliable sources local newspapers and a radio station for a small town + a feature from a military focus web-zine do not confer notability. If they did every school sports team and every amateur dramatic group would merit their own article as such sources could easily be found for them to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true (and what school teams get written up in Stars and Stripes?) this would still be considerably beyond the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria with a half hour radio interview, a very detailed write-up in Stars and Stripes, two independent newspaper secondary sources, and thirteen additional sources. Dualus (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article on Stars and Stripes is accurate, it is a daily newspaper with a considerable circulation, not a "web-zine" - an excellent example of the sort of source which can establish notability. Warofdreams talk 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources above were in the article when it was first deleted at AFD, including the one in Stars and Stripes, and all were when it was endorsed at DRV. No substantial change to text. Should not have been restored to mainspace. Speedy delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, only the Stars and Stripes source was in the article when it was deleted. The other three substantial sources cited above are new. Dualus (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2011 (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.