Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Bunch Paintball Team

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. Discounting the obviously canvassed opinions.  Sandstein  09:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bunch Paintball Team[edit]

Wild Bunch Paintball Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable paintball team which has not been the subject of coverage by reliable sources. Apart from one press release, all of the references in the article are from unreliable sources. I had previously tagged the article for speedy deletion under A7, and the article was deleted, but now it's back. This time, I'm sending this to AfD because the writing of the article and the reference nevertheless make claims to notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The magazine articles check out. I have updated the titles of the two articles that were missing, I revised one of the notations for an entirely different magazine that was buried in the links. I also uncovered two additional magazines that featured the team and I have added the citation for that to the article. For any editors who have already voted, please look at the revised list of publications that have run feature articles on the team. Lest we get lost in the weeds too-what's at issue in this AfD is the concept of notability to justify the article and these publications address that issue directly. As to the other links regarding tertiary information, not every link is required to show notability, the concept of citations is to show evidence of, and lend credence to, the preceding sentence. What makes Wikipedia unique, and separates it from a stagnant printed encyclopedia, is that it is an organic online collection of information written amidst a world that is changing its methods of information delivery more rapidly then any previous time in history, with articles often running contemporaneous with the subject matter, as is the case here.
Bottom line, eight separate published magazine articles, one of which had a readership in more than 30 countries worldwide.216.14.180.132 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 216.14.180.132 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Always nice to see a healthy dialogue on a afd. Keep crowd-thank you for your thoughtful and courteous responses. The issue of multiple magazine publications with features on the team seems well pled on notability. But, keep those articles coming if you can, we prefer to see a more robust list of published sources to support a article. Also, you got dinged by the bot for self published articles, get those cleaned up as quickly as you can.
Team delete- Thank you for offering your personal opinions, but your responses have failed to address the issue of the multiple magazine articles that have spotlighted the team.
Caeciliusinhorto thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. It looks like the timestamps show that the magazine articles were added after your most recent entry, the discussion would benefit from your feedback on whether that flips the switch for you?
FeelTheBernBaby- no matter how this turns out, I wanted to commend you on very well written first article. Welcome to the community, we hope you stick around. New blood helps make the page what it is. Thank you for your responses, keep up the great work! 74.93.25.125 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 74.93.25.125 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, a whole bunch of references have been added since I last looked at this discussion. Mostly,I think they are no good whatsoever from an AfD perspective, but there are a few which might be useful: namely, the articles in Paintball 2Xtremes and Paintball Games International. Unfortunately, I can't find out much about these magazines, and I don't have access to any of the articles in question, which makes it hard for me to evaluate whether or not the articles help establish notability. If there's no way of getting access to these articles for anyone, then that might end up being a problem due to wikipedia's verifiability policies, even if the articles would if available establish notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Supporting links have expanded by over 70% since article first appeared. At least some have been verified, giving basis for leeway w/ the other links. The notability issue is settled via the publications; they have appeared in five different issues of national publications and one international publication (satisfying reliable and independent needs).

    Keep, 100%.  The pattern shown suggests additional support will likely yet be added, further cementing the case for this page to be permanently kept. AuribusTeneoLupum (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — AuribusTeneoLupum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. It's been a while since I have looked at the editor's side of this page, but it certainly has changed a lot since I was last here. For a first-time article, this is more than sufficient to allow the article to grow. Looking at the many "stub" articles that are still left on the site and the innumerable articles with far less support, I was very surprised to see the suggestion that this page be deleted. This seems to directly go against the "don't bite" policy with which we welcome first-time users to our community. That said, I wanted to provide a different perspective. I am a former pro shop owner in the sport of paintball and am very familiar with the team the article discusses. Within the paintball community, there is no question as to their achievements, the fact that they were able to get a commissioned team gun design from Planet Eclipse is absolutely unheard of on the scenario side, and that alone justifies their page (and is proof by itself of the notable place that this team holds within the community of paintball). It is clear from some of the comments that many of the editors are completely unfamiliar with paintball. That's fine, but no basis for deletion. I will look through publications to see if I can add links to some of the awards that the team has earned and add those into the citations. No question that this page should be kept, it hasn't even been up for 24 hours yet. I'm a little sad if this is the direction the editor Community is taking now. CoachKBar (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC) CoachKBar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Update-- Since this deletion was first proposed, the author has offered a counterpoint and added several links to multiple published, non-trivial sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The first publication appears to check out as multiple chat rooms and discussion boards congratulate the team on the magazine feature and the player on the cover (who is apparently one of the founders of the team).
While I was unable to find an accessible version of the second two publications referenced, multiple searches did link the team's name to those issues, so the reference appears credible.
We may be spoiled when researching articles that are related to academia, because of the ease of cross-referencing and readily available, catalogued search results. While that is not the case here, taken as a whole, the page entry does display notability sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards.
With regard to the negative point that "two [citations] are to the blog of some guy who sells paintball accessories," that is an incorrect micharacterization. The blog is an authorized account from the paintball manufacturer, objectively, one of the largest in the world. It is owned and exclusively operated by the foreign company and was entirely independent of the team until the sponsorship agreement.
While this does appear to be a more difficult area, as it pertains to citations, due to the fact that books, scholarly articles and the JSTOR database contains nothing about them, that appears a difficulty inherent to the entire genre of paintball. Held to that strict criteria Wikipedia would be entirely devoid of anything on the topic.
Given that background, the team's own website notwithstanding, the listed citations do appear intellectually independent and independent of the subject.
One final point in favor of keeping the page. My research suggests that the author correctly points out that the sport began in 1981. For sake of equivalency, this would be as examining the news coverage of baseball teams in 1874 (with baseball's commonly accepted invention date being in 1839).
This page should be kept. English Prof Wizard (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC) English Prof Wizard (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sport of paintball was only just created in 1981, so it is one of the most recently developed sports in the world. Scenario style tournaments are just in their infancy compared to other sports. Given that, the sport of paintball, especially scenario competitions, hardly receive any citable media coverage. In the case of the team in question, of the national articles covering the team, they were in print publications that do not have online mirrors, so an online link is not possible (one such article has been added). Complicating the matter further, all three of the national magazines that wrote about this team have since gone out of business, and accordingly, do not maintain a web presence or accessible database.
In total, I researched for over a week to compile the sources that I was able to find. One additional challenge is that paintball websites routinely purge older records, or archive them after a period of time, so even online articles written about the team are not available 24 months after being shared online. More challenging still, coverage of events and awards earned often are replaced on the hosting field’s websites in a matter of weeks following the event, as the sites are hosted by small businesses with a limited space for data on their websites (this was even the case for the international website for paintball manufacturer Valken, as mentioned). Finding remaining online links to awards that this team previously earned is extremely challenging. It is understandable, given how new the sport of paintball is, if one is unfamiliar with the sport, to see the verifiability of the page in question, but, Planet Eclipse is an international company (makers of the best-selling high-end guns in the world), located in England, and they selected that team for full sponsorship. Most notably, they partnered with the team to create the first scenario-team edition paintball marker in the world. That first is enormous and extremely notable to the sport, all of which are verified through the links, including the company’s official blog and account.
That said, please look at this as a developing article, one that will be further fortified to more clearly demonstrate the importance of its subject matter and support the existence of the page. Leaving the page up as a developing page will additionally offer the chance for many other Wikipedia editors to add content as they uncover it, further enriching the page. FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: FeelTheBernBaby (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
  • I was able to finally track down the specific issues from at least three of the publications that featured the team and I added those, in proper citation format, to the page. They provide information that is independent, reliable, and that provided significant coverage of the article's subject.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team was featured in four national magazine articles and in the only international paintball magazine to date. In closely examining the notability guidelines, "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself...have actually considered the [group] notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." The four magazines issues that featured the team were circulated throughout North America and had no affiliation with the team in any way. The International magazine that featured them was circulated throughout Europe, Russia, Asia, and North America and also did not have any affiliation with the team. These alone satisfy the specified Wikipedia standards with regard to Notability. FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the list of publications has grown, but I continue to research other publications as well. I have done my best to monitor the page and make all requested changes. Regarding the self-published citation issue, there's a ton that's been added by others that I have yet to get through. Wherever possible, I will try to find links that comply, but, from the sample I have looked at, they relate to trivial matters. Taking the team's schedule, for example, the link does run to their website, but the basis is not to show notability but to abbreviate the article and keep it clean (allowing a reader to consult the referenced schedule if they wish). I will continue to work through the citations, but I will need the weekend to get through them all, so I appreciate your understanding and patience as I do so.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was well written, especially compared against the majority of new articles. Definitely seems premature to delete the page entirely, could be one to watch and see what links are added. It's not the type of subject matter that receives coverage by the typical reliable sources. On weight, the article is more credible than not, it should not be deleted. English Prof Wizard (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC) English Prof Wizard (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. None of the sources in the article seem to be all three of independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage, and I can't find any better searching the web myself. Of seventeen references, three are to the team's own website, one is to reddit, three to web forums, one to Facebook, one to youtube, and one does not even mention the team. Of the remainder, two are to the blog of some guy who sells paintball accessories, one is a press release which simply lists events, one more is an event listing, two are just galleries of photographs, and one is about a competition which according to the article the team were involved in – but the source itself doesn't mention them... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More sources have been added, but I still do not see that they meet the notability guidelines. The argument that some of those arguing to keep the article have made, that "It's not the type of subject matter that receives coverage by the typical reliable sources" could be a reason to suggest a change to wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source, but it's not a particularly good reason to keep the article under the current policies, I am afraid. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing that establishes notability in all the plethora of references provided. "Voting" by SPA's also doesn't give any confidence to arguments to retain  Velella  Velella Talk   13:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a no-brainer; once I finished removing all of the sources that didn't meet WP:RS, there's nothing left. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons--this could have been tagged as A7. Not notable, etc. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per the above posts. The obvious campaign to save this article by people (or just the one person?) with no prior interest in Wikipedia is also a good reason to delete what's a clearly problematic article given it indicates that the article was created for promotional purposes. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 21:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among the *many* links provided as references, none seem to be notable. Dubious. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the author of this article and this is my first experience on the editor side of Wikipedia. In total, I have spent in excess of 47 hours researching, writing, and learning the very basics of this process. While there are many rules in play, the most often repeated in articles addressing new writers is to "be bold." I am going to take that advice. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "[s]ome reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." A brief search of Google without results is not controlling, according to the guidelines. With regard to the requirements established in WP:RS, it says that the basis of Wikipedia articles should be reliable, published sources.
What forms the foundation of the article, and establishes the notability required, are eight magazine issues that feature the team. Three issues of Paintball 2Xtremes, two issues of Action Pursuit Games, one issue of Facefull, one issue of Jungle, and one issue of Paintball Games International. I am in the process of reaching out individually, to each of the remaining contact avenues listed for all of these publications, asking for the full details of the magazines, as well as where and how to best access them now. While I await word, my supplemental research reveals the following:
  • Paintball 2Xtremes had an average monthly circulation of 59,000 over the course of its publication and was sold worldwide.
  • Action Pursuit Games had an annual subscriber base of $105,000,000 per year, and at its peak, produced more than 50,000 copies per issue, was sold worldwide, and was voted as the most recognizable name in paintball.
  • Facefull ran for 11 years, and became the 17th best-selling sports magazine in the United States; it was sold worldwide.
  • Jungle was also sold worldwide and had a circulation that averaged 34,000.
  • Paintball Games International was based out of the United Kingdom, and had a circulation that peaked at roughly 71,000 and had the highest readership of any paintball publication in both Europe and Russia.
I compiled this information by starting with online searches, then meeting with librarians, visiting college libraries and accessing their databases, and even meeting with a manager at Barnes and Noble, who shared with me historical sales data and listing information.
In examining the standards of WP:RS, these publications wholly satisfy the conditions presented.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had to think about this one, as the subject is obviously not as notable as we would normally like, but I had to ask myself this, would Wikipedia be better off if we keep or delete this article. If we delete it, we risk driving away a new editor who has spent a great deal of time researching and writing this article and would therefore be less inclined to write any more, and if we keep it, are we keeping a low quality article in the mainspace? To the last question, I don't think this is a low quality article and I don't think that keeping it in anyway degrades the overall quality of Wikipedia. So I propose we be bold and ignore all rules and keep it, and for those that need to stick with policy, I propose that the various paintball magazines that have covered this team passes the bar as far as reliable sources go. Robman94 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HARMLESS. Sorry "FeelTheBernBaby", but by the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the most appropriate articles don't always get submitted. Maybe some of this information can be added to the teams website or a "paintball community" website? Wickypedoia (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think most of the "delete" opinions above have neglected the point that specialist sources are acceptable in establishing notability. In my opinion, the independent sources cited on the article and referred to in this AfD add up to meet WP:GNG. I also agree with Robman94 above that most "delete" opinions in this discussion have basically been biting the newcomer - I find Nick-D's comment particularly worrying. Deryck C. 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:46, 21 May 2016 (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/Wild_Bunch_Paintball_Team&oldid=1089517177"