Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional sports teams (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 keep. Sandstein 07:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional sports teams[edit]

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

Indiscriminate trivia/recreation of deleted material —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate and trivial listing. Edison (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as The Top 20 Fictional Teams in Sports History, Encyclopedia of film themes, settings and series, Children's films: history, ideology, pedagogy, theory and The Ultimate Book of Sports Movies. Warden (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Warden. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently its just a trivia list and the scope of the list is too broad for any concise, encyclopedic article to develop. The previous AfD was correct in its conclusion. Them From Space 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous AFD appears to have up as a delete due to the poor quality and lack of references, rather than the policy question of whether the article should exist. As noted above, this has been discussed in reliable sources, so this is a valid article (as well as consistent with many other lists of fictional things which have survived AFD) and any concerns about the article should be addressed by improving, rather than deleting, it. Ma^t_chups
Keep Nominator doesn't articulate how or why this is indiscriminate... which is probably because it's not: fictional sports teams is a specific topic. I would have no objection to categorizing it as well as listing it, but as long as each team is sourced to the primary source in which it originates (to meet V), then Colonel Warden has demonstrated the topic has received enough coverage to meet N. And, of course, once the topic meets N and the contents meet V, there's no need for each element of the contents to meet N, per WP:NNC, so we're left without any good argument to delete this. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and drastic clean-up I think there's still the potential for a discriminate topic here, no matter how poor this list is in execution. There may be hope with this list if you remove the unverifiable and trivial entries. The best case for the long-term viability of this list may be to focus on a shorter list of more significant entries. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources found by Col. Warden make a reasonable case that a fictional sports teams article could be written but this poorly sourced and indiscriminate list is not that article. If it were moved and rewritten it could be salvageable but that's true of any inappropriate article. So, I would probably go with delete without prejudice against a new article not in list form on the topic. On the other hand, a, selective, list will be part of any article so this might be a useable first draft. <shrugs> Eluchil404 (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Col. The issue of which teams to include is an editing question, not warrant for deletion of the entire list. If it is limited to teams playing a significant role in notable fiction its the opposite of indiscriminate, because that excludes about 90% of the possibilities--since most fiction is non-notable, (My definition of a significant role is if the team has some role in the plot.) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 22 July 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.