Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby Braves

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. NW (Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Braves[edit]

Derby Braves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. They are often unheard of even on their own campuses. This team does not appear to be one of the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The article's single reference is to the team's own web site, which hardly qualifies it as independent. Given the lack of sources, there isn't really any prospect of referencing the article further or expanding it. Pit-yacker (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of references, lack of prospect of referencing. This is not one of the very few British university sports teams that pass WP:GNG. Pfainuk talk 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I've said time and again, there are very few British Uni sports that are notable. This isn't one of them and since a Google search reveals nothing sans their own website and their rivals, I doubt they ever will become notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The breathless declamation "British University sports teams are not generally notable" can be taken as PoV. The subject here is a team (i.e. a group of people) who are in a league (a larger group of people) supported by a fanbase (an even larger group of people) watched by an audience (you see where I'm going with this, right?). They are clearly of some public note, even if it's tiny. As for sources, they may easily be forthcoming from UK newspapers, academic publications, etc.: Google is not the only source of verifiability in the world! I say as long as it's a reasonably informative article (which it is), there are far worse infractions of the notability rule to worry about. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps demonstrate some of these sources? Simply stating speculatively that sources "may be easily forthcoming" is insufficient to demonstrate notability - because you could use the same speculation on just about any subject.
You talk about a fanbase, and an audience. Perhaps you could point to some evidence for this? Fan websites, for example, that could be used as independent reliable sources per WP:GNG? I can't find any evidence of any significant fanbase. Which is not surprising: in the UK, it is unusual for a university sports match to get any spectators who aren't actually members of one of the clubs involved. And when you do get spectators, they're generally friends and family of squad members - or else players from the women's hockey match that just finished on the next pitch over. And that's even in major sports (American football is not a major sport in the UK).
You say there are far worse infractions of the notability rule. Maybe there are - and you're welcome to nominate articles that you consider a problem in this regard for deletion - but that does not mean that this article should not be deleted. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is ONE UK University sporting event that I can think of that can truly be declared to be noteworthy and that is the boat race. For the rest, they are lucky if they get coverage in the institution's in-house paper. If they are extremely luck or extremely adept at PR they might get patchy coverage in a local newspaper. There is certainly nothing in the nationals.
Go and have a look at the galleries on Derby Brave's own gallery, the Huddersfield Hawks gallery is a typical "crowd" you would expect for one of these matches. Google's news search which carries most news sources of worth in the world and returns nothing relevant in an archives search. Google scholar which returns academic work returns absolutely nothing at all for "Derby Braves".
Whether or not the article is informative is irrelevant if the article covers something of next to zero notability. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF isn't really an argument, for the present AfD. Or by that stretch, is Wikipedia going to start having articles for the hundreds of Working men's club and pub soccer teams throughout the UK? These have teams which consist of numerous players, playing in leagues of numerous teams. What's more they also have fans - not least the members of the club/regular customers together with anyone who happens to be walking their dog in the local municipal park/recreation ground. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SteveStrummer's argument breaks down completely when it gets to "supported by a fanbase (an even larger group of people) watched by an audience (you see where I'm going with this, right?)". The fanbase and the audience (who are actually spectators rather than an audience, unless you think that people prefer listening to sport than watching it) for just about any university sport in the UK are smaller in number than the participants. How many of England's association football World Cup squad who are flying home as I write this do you think ever played for a university team (clue: the number is the same shape as the ball)? My son was placed in the first twenty in UK student championships in four individual sports, but I'm sure he would consider it ridiculous if someone was to write an encyclopedia article about him on that basis. In the UK universities and serious sport are two completely separate worlds, apart from the Oxford and Cambridge rivalry in rowing and rugby union, and those universities' cricket teams' historical first-class status. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, gentlemen, the argument does not break down at all from your unsourced and entirely baseless claims. No fanbase?? Do organized sports ever exist without them? Why the websites, the statistics, the league itself? Why do they have cheerleaders?? You may demean them all you like, but the players, organizers, sponsors, students, and spectators certainly exist, and they disagree with you. Maybe university teams sent no one to the World Cup this year, but I think it likely that more than one ended up in NFL Europe (which was the original home of Kurt Warner, among others), and they certainly permeate the crowd at the NFL International Series (the 2010 series is in London, btw). As for the Google worship, I don't know how you conducted your investigation, but a simple search for "british university american football" (in quotes) yields 13,800 hits, and another for "derby braves" yields 4,760. It requires no citation for me to say definitively that enthusiasts of American football worldwide would be delighted to read about the teams of the BUAFL, and they should rightfully expect to find that information in helpful, unbiased form right here on Wikipedia - unless you cause a mass deletion of these sound, dignified, and well-constructed articles. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You ask if organised sports ever exist without a fanbase. Yes. They do. Frequently. You don't hear much about them precisely because they don't have a fanbase.
You argue that British university American football teams are notable because some of their players may or may not have participated in NFL Europe, a league that is now defunct because it was losing a lot of money. This would not make the university teams notable. You argue that some of the British university American football teams are notable because some of their players may or may not have been in the crowd for an NFL match. Members of the Swindon Tiddlywinks club may have been in the crowd as well, but that doesn't make it notable.
On Google, you do the opposite of what you accuse us of doing. You take a raw number without reference to the independence or reliability of the sources. 4,760 doesn't seem a lot for a Google search - particularly one that apparently includes Wikipedia and its mirrors. Your remaining arguments boil down to it being interesting and well written - maybe it is interesting to someone, and maybe it is well written, but that doesn't make it notable.
What we're asking for is, as I say, not a high standard. It is for, in the words of WP:GNG, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I contend that such coverage does not exist. Pfainuk talk 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Yes organised sports frequently exist without a fan-base. In what way is a fan-base a pre-requisite for starting a league? How come you are sure that these fans exist? You accuse others of not having sources, but where are yours? Did you or do you, attend a British University? Do you know the culture of UK Higher Education? I spent 10 years in various guises at my university. I was vaguely aware of the existence of a soccer and netball team, which got limited coverage in the student newspaper (squashed in below reports on Manchester United and Manchester City). I was also aware that the Athletic Union fielded teams in literally dozens of less notable sports (of varying notability and interest to a general audience). However, and my experience, appears not to be untypical, I had absolutely no idea what any of the teams where up to, nor that my University had an American Football team.
Why have cheer-leaders? I guess it gives something for the players' girl-friends something to do to keep warm. The cheer-leaders are frequently the only other ones at matches. The other side is of course it is something for a separate cheer-leading society to cheer-lead (besides the dancing in a gay bar that one now deleted cheer-leading team article claimed as a reason for notability). On the cheer-leading subject (perhaps also applicable to the teams), its worth note that it is piss easy to set up a student society at a British University. From memory, you need a single figure number of members and to sign up to a number of principles (such as being non-discriminatory). Once you do that, the University Union (ergo The University - ergo HM Taxpayer) will stump up a not insignificant amount of money to run the society on. Of course, to continue getting that FREE cash you need new blood to replace those that leave. At that point, as a niche interest sport, a bit of cheap publicity in the form of your own website (and a Wikipedia article) comes in useful ;). (In my experience getting a web-space within the university ain't difficult either. My uni positively encouraged students to create their own web-sites. In fact writing web pages was part of a mandatory course for non-technical subjects. The organisation was so loose that it was harder to get rid of old out-dated websites, because that frequently involves actually physically locating the computer hosting the site).
On your point about various people going onto other things. Notability should not be inherited. The team should have notability to stand on its own feet. If all you can say about a team is that X played for them for 3 years whilst at university, the team can't actually be that notable. Equally, a team cannot be notable because some of its members once went to watch a match of notable teams. Is my employer notable because one of my colleagues went to watch Manchester United?
As for you statements about Google searches. You aren't actually parsing what you are getting. What counts are sites, or anything reliable that can be used as a reference and to establish notability. In that regard there is nothing or very close to it. As previously stated the results consist of a pile of sites affiliated in some way with rival teams, various mirrors of the Wikipedia article, various mirrors of current and old versions of the team's own site and various other sites belonging to the University of Derby. As early as page 4 there are results unconnected with the team. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't care about fan base or cheerleaders, for those things do not make anything notable. My position is simple: there are no independent sources to cite with this article. Policy is clear. Give us independent sources, you got a different game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - catastrophic failure to meet WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. An indication of just how low the profile of sports in the University of Derby is, is that there is no specific mention, at all, of any of the sports teams in the University article. No indication in the article, or this discussion, of any claim to notability. Indeed, I am wondering whether their league, itself, is notable since the league article has almost no independent sources. TerriersFan (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - never mind the university's article on WP, the sports clubs aren't even mentioned on the university's official website, which goes to show how major a part of student life in the UK student sports are(n't). Delete as 100% non-notable off-campus and probably 95% non-notable on it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It leaves me incredulous that anyone would try to claim that an enormous human enterprise like the BUAFL is without any "notability". However, here are some "independent, verifiable secondary sources" about the BUAFL and its many teams:

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2005/11/29/sport_american_football_feature.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/northampton_town/8416162.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2008/03/20/american_football_stallions_feature.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-igvKToKcw&feature=related

UK Channel 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGhrMDxcKk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFOcwYr7ZI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgV0DCCg1Tk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKb6PVDqYM&feature=related

Additionally, the UK Daily Mirror maintains a very active American Football blog on its website, and it features the BUAFL regularly:

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/fourth-down/2009/04/buafl-national-chamionship-fin-3.html

SteveStrummer (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These are not relevant to the present Afd. Being generous, there is one approx 20s reference to Derby Braves in the whole lot, being less generous there is about two 4s of a person introducing themselves as a player for said team and then attempting to chuck a ball at a car. There is absolutely no use for this as a reference. The rest concern a number of different subjects. They cannot be taken as a group to keep any single article. Each article should be discussed on its own merits. For example, take those related to BUAFL to the as yet unstarted BUAFL AfD. If there are enough sources for a single article it should be kept. However, as yet and I have come across the BBC local pages and mentioned them in previous AfDs, there is not enough on any single team to keep their article. Link by link:
  1. Two sentences mentioning the existence of Staffordshire Stallions (not Derby Braves) in an article about American Football in the local area. Page is a now defunct local service.
  2. Report that Northampton Town's stadium will be used by BUAFL. No mention of any team let alone Derby Braves.
  3. as 1, report on Staffordshire Stallions on now defunct local service. No mention of Derby Braves.
  4. 2 min filler segment on (?show that goes out after midnight?) discussing the names of BUAFL teams.
  5. 4 min filler segment (another edition of same show) where 5 BUAFL players attempt to throw ball at car window. Features About 20s of a Derby Braves player.
  6. About BAFL NOT BUAFL.
  7. Filler on same Five show. About Birmingham Lions and Bath Killer Bees, thus not relevant to this Afd.
  8. Blogs don't usually constitute reliable sources. Contains a grand total of 17 posts of matters BUAFL (16 between Feb and April 2009, with 1 in Dec 2009). 6 of the posts concern the same match. Thus, I would hardly call its coverage of BUAFL "active" or "regular". There is only one mention of Derby Braves, the subject of this Afd, which is nothing other than a single match score in a whole list.

Pit-yacker (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those YouTube videos appear to be copyvios. If so, we certainly can't reference them and shouldn't be linking them here. The show concerned was a show about the NFL, put out on Channel 5 at about 7am on a Sunday. Apparently, they used to do filler items on domestic American football - though nothing, obviously, on the university teams, that we could base an article on as Steve suggests. Pfainuk talk 06:51, 3 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derby_Braves&oldid=1068880928"