Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VikingBall

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 since the lack of reliable sources has not been addressed. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VikingBall

VikingBall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable local variant of street hockey. No independent sources of information about the sport to verify the subject. This article is just one notch up from something made up after school one day, in my opinion. (Note to closing admin: a redirect to this article exists at Vikingball.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Although it is a little more than something made up, it doesn't appear to be really notable. A google search brings up a bunch of hits, but all unrelated. - Rjd0060 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original prodder (there must be a better word). Prod reason was: "A sport invented in 2006. The 43 Google hits are almost exclusively brief mentions in forums, blogs etc. The best source appears to be here: [1]. According to the official website, at the moment it is played by only 2 teams." Unnotable. -- Kateshortforbob 10:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: It's gaining notoriety, a Youtube video introduction is on the way up. There is some interest from Canadian hockey players. A fairly dedicated group of people regularly play. There are considerably less notable things on Wikipedia, this could be of interest to many looking for a chance to try a new but familiar sport similar to street hockey. We are attempting to attract more people, and if a free online encyclopedia that is geared toward universal access won't allow something to take up this minimal amount of bandwidth, what good is a site like this? The article does no harm, only good, in that it may help our program to become "more notable" and perhaps then fit for the lofty standards it apparently requires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.187 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation stricken as courtesy to other participants. As a matter of practice, !votes from IP addresses are discounted because they cannot be linked to specific users. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to advertise your sport, there are many other sites that are good for promoting it. Once it has gotten coverage in independent reliable sources, then the issue of whether it is an encylopedic subject can be revisited. (I mean, if TSN or ESPN do a story on it, then the sources hurdle is cleared easily.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is some interest from a local paper (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) to do a story on it. Is that acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.187 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction. The standard calls for multiple independent sources. I mentioned TSN or ESPN specifically because of their international scope, which would provide clear evidence of notability. Coverage in a single local-paper article would not suffice. Coverage in multiple articles would. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (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.