Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Blades

: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 merge to Bandy in the United States. (or wherever). Ditto of my close @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamo Duluth slakr\ talk / 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

=[[Minnesota Blades]]=

:{{la|Minnesota Blades}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota_Blades Stats])

:({{Find sources|Minnesota Blades}})

Objected to prod. In an extensive search I was unable to find any articles talking about the team specifically in any depth to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the page are merely primary sources and stat/roster lists. The team appears to be a local recreational team and due to the sports very low popularity in the US happens to be as high as you can go in the sport. DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, this is a deletion request based on guesses about the nature of the club. The club is notable. Bandy boy (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

:*Then you should be able to proove it with sources that show its notability. Extensive searches have not shown any. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::*Sources can prove verifiability. Notability is proven by arguments and comparissions with other subjects. You have done neither. Bandy boy (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:::*No notability is proven by people writing about a topic. One of the arguments listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is the comparison to other subjects. Because the fact that X is notable does not mean that Y is notable. Notability for each subject is independent. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::::*So you mean every article about an independent state, a capital city or a head of state is not notable in itself? There is no conventional wisdom? The notability has to be found in other sources? So the United States of America is not notable in it self? You have to prove the existence of it to write about it? In that case, every fact in every article needs to be sourced, and I should add a source proving the notability of the United States to the article about Minnesota Blades? I also have to add a reference about Minnesota, another about bandy and perhaps one about ice too? I think you misinterprete what notability is all about. Notability is "[t]he quality or state of being notable or eminent", to quote Wiktionary. Notability is not about what you can prove, but what is worth writing about. Sources prove verifiability, not notability. Bandy boy (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::*No nothing is inherently notable. Everything has to be proven with sources. So yes, articles on the individual states would need sources talking about them in order to have an article. Now because they are states they are written about a lot so the sources are easy to find which proves they are notable. You don't have to put sources for Minnesota in the article about a bandy team, but you do have to put sources in an article about Minnesota. Again notability on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning outlined in WP:Notability. There is a whole section on the bottom of that page which explains why we require sources to prove notability. We proove that it is worth writing about by showing that it has sources. If it doesn't have sources Wikipedia considers it not worth writing about. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::*OK, shall we delete the article about conventional wisdom then, since it doesn't exist? The article about axiom too? Bandy boy (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::*Outside of Wikipedia those things are fine and obviously exist. But Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which determine what we can and can't put on the site and how it is put on the site. We don't take anything for granted because one persons conventional wisdom might be different from another persons as well as for the reasons that are explained in the section I linked about Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

: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.