Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K9 Pro Sports

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K9 Pro Sports[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails general notability guidelines. K9 Pro Sports was a fly-by-night spin-off of a Schutzhund-like dog sport that lasted only a few years before morphing/merging into another spin-off protection sport group of a different name, morphed again, and therefore got renamed multiple times. K9 Pro Sports has been defunct for so long that you can no longer find online any citations to cover what it "was" under the name K9 Pro Sports. My searches for WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. One other editor's WP:BEFORE turned up two (subscription-required) articles from the Caldwell Burleson Star newspaper archives; the paper has been out of business for 15 years, and covered a small town of just 4,000 residents. Not exactly "broad coverage" and definitely not "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail". Passes neither WP:GNG nor Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Normal Op (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like there are a few remote print sources, but these are either in niche magazines or local papers. In my view it does not pass GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once notable always notable WP:NTEMP. We have RS, local RS is still RS and stating that the newspaper is out of business for fifteen years does not diminish the validity of the source. And "broad coverage" is not a requirement of WP:RS. I will continue to search for sources to show notability. I removed the prod and began working on the article, the AfD was placed immediately. WP:NORUSH Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will address your comments, and add a few more points:

"Broad coverage" was my paraphrase for WP:GNG's "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, and "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
@Lightburst: if you have access to those subscription-required newspaper archives, then please add a quote parameter within the citation so the average reader can see what the article says. I posit that those articles merely announce a competition, and probably do not cover the subject of "K9 Pro Sports" in any detail (unless it is a press release).
WP:NORUSH doesn't apply here. The article has been sitting around, non-sourced and full of WP:OR for 9 years. I could have simply removed non-sourced content. In fact, I still might. It is important to remove it because scrapers take Wikipedia content and repeat it all over the internet (making it even harder later to determine whether the source is reliable, or a wiki editor's WP:OR, or someone else's words copied by a wiki editor for this article).
As for the two original citations with no links: both are non-RS. Both "Dog and Kennel" and "Dog Sport Magazine" appear to have been minor mags from a non-notable publisher. They are mentioned here as Dog & Kennel is the magazine for dog lovers and enthusiasts! Training, health care, feeding, grooming, bonding, events and the enjoyment of owning dogs. and Dog Sport: A glossy magazine with "how-to" stories giving agility, rally-o, obedience, and flyball enthusiasts practical ideas on how to improve the quality of their training and competing. The first has no web content, the second's website seems unavailable. An advanced google search (which uses cached pages), such as "k9 pro sports" site:dogsportmagazine.com, returns zero results.
So that leaves the article with ZERO sources for verification.
Yesterday, I found a Facebook page with the name "K9 Pro Sports", checked out the attached website, and watched a few of their videos. It looks like a one- or two-man business that is basically a commercial operation starting a new dog breed (low-shedding German Shepherds), selling puppies, offering stud service, training dogs, and have created this "sport" as an adjunct to their business. It is perhaps a niche activity that others participate in, but to say it is notable is stretching matters. My understanding is that there was a small flush of interest in the beginning, but when top-level dogs (including Doberman "Kaz" Arkan Kazimir Von Rubenhof) were being crippled by "brick wall decoys", there was a mass exodus by the participants and dog owners on the basis that it was as an unsafe, fringe sport.

— Normal Op (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the RS in #1 number 1 is not correct. Your point #5 is also incorrect: it is unfortunate that you cannot read the newspapers but that does not make them irrelevant. Regarding number 2 WP:NORUSH: I cited that in response to the immediate AfD after I removed the prod and began to improve the article. Your numbers 4 and 6 just cover your opinions and WP:BEFORE work you have done. If the article is deleted, will the readers of the encyclopedia be served? I believe WP:NTEMP. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...will the readers of the encyclopedia be served?" is a rhetorical question for which there is no answer. William Harristalk 11:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources, just scant local newspaper mentions and a single industry magazine column feature, so in my view does not pass GNG. I could have an article with similar sources. Cavalryman (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any coverage outside few google hits that are mentions in passing or PRIMARY, seems to fail WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. William Harristalk 10:18, 24 July 2020 (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.