Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Cubs

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. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Cubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Defunct hockey team that won a minor championship. The championship is notable, but unless Wikipedia is now a directory (which WP:NOT say we aren't) the team is not. I do not subscribe to the idea of "inherent" (i.e. inherited) notability, the sole source cited is not even actually a source, it's a user-edited site from which the content was taken. I find no non-trivial independent coverage, only listings. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Resolute 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For the timeframe of this team, Senior hockey was considered equal to the pro game in prestige, and this team could very easily be considered to have played at the top level of the sport. Alas, while I have several histories detailing Alberta's teams of that era, I have nothing for BC, and there isn't much online. I'd say Merge/redirect to West Kootenay League unless other sources are turned up. Resolute 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and Improve: That this team existed is completely verifiable. That this team was a top-tier senior men’s team from British Columbia is demonstrated by their Coy Cup win in 1921-22, and then winning the WKHL championship the following year. This is a historical senior men’s team that performed at the highest level. A defunct team from the 1920’s does not generate many news articles today. But when it was a going-concern, it was most certainly followed and analyzed in the reputable media sources of its day. It has been demonstrated that Wikipedia notability discussions will sometimes show a Bias toward Internet sources. I do not have easy access to search for reputable media sources (such as newspaper and magazine articles) from the 1920’s, but I have no doubt that if someone does a search for such hardcopy sources that “verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large, to support a claim of notability” would be found in abundance. This article speaks to the history of hockey in Canada (both amateur and professional), and I strongly support keeping this article. Dolovis (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oooh, a strong keep and improve? You'll be adding some reliable independent sources, then? Right now it has none. Bias towards Internet sources? What we have here appears to be the precise opposite: bias towards any hockey team that ever existed. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A bias towards hyperbole helps nothing, Guy. Resolute 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its not a bias of teams that ever existed, the simple fact is this team won Senior AA championship of British Columbia which at the time was one of the highest levels of Hockey in British Columbia, I would think that there are some kind of records, newspaper articles, or books about it somewhere. And before you say it no I'm not going to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leech44 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Senior hockey during the time frame the team exists was the 2nd highest level of hockey in the world in many respects. The team would have been written about extensively in its time frame. Please tell me you have followed deletion process and made a good faith attempt to find references in sources that are contemporary to the team? And before you claim its up to the people saying keep to provide them that isn't actually so. Per WP:GNG "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." A team at this level would have had news articles written about it in many papers at the time, so it passes that requirement. And per WP:GD "Before nominating an article for AFD, please...first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." In the case of a team this old a google search doesn't cut it, so please show us that you searched newspapers from this time period prior to bringing it to afd. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to West Kootenay League I'm sorry, but " A team at this level would have had news articles written about it" is not a valid reason to keep. A regional team is not inhertently notable and google web, news, and scholar as well as LexisNexis bring up nothing reliable. Perhaps someone could find something in microfiche, but as the article is written now, it does not show widespread reliable (or any at all) coverage by the media or anyone to prove extensive coverage as required by WP:N. The burden of proof falls on those who created the article to provide sources, not those who nominate and WP:V does not go by the principle that someone out there must care, so there must be something to support it. The article may have a possibility of being notable for having won a regional championship, but at this time there is nothing to support the notability of the team and without sources to show that the win was actually important to people, there is no case for notability.--Terrillja _talk 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Define what you are calling reliable? All it needs to have been is talked about in independant sources. Regional or not, every league is regional. Senior hockey at this time was the top level of amateur hockey and the equivalent of the professional minor leagues in the US. Just because various laws and what not in Canada required the players to be paid under the table as opposed to openly is not a reason to automatically assume no notability. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am saying national newspapers, magazines, something of that level. It doesn't just say independent, it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Reliable sources, not just independent ones. I couldn't even find any coverage coming up in local newspapers. Someone's personal site is not a reliable source and in fact is to be avoided per WP:ELNO. And something is not notable until it is shown to be notable, not vice versa as your logic appears to be. I'm also not assuming no notability, I looked, there is nothing that I can find. Unfortunately without someone finding some offline sources, finding sources on a defunct team will be hard since most magazines and newspapers of that era are not digitized and searchable.--Terrillja _talk 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, and nuking an article the day its created is not conducive to actually getting those sources. Which is why WP:GD requires you to actually make a search of sources prior to putting it up for deletion. A simple web search is not enough. (I know you did more in the end but its clear the nominator did not). There is a reason we have stub tags. -DJSasso (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, I've little doubt that Guy did do a search for sources before initiating the AfD. There is nothing online for a team this old. You can't expect someone outside of BC/Western Canada to be able to scan through the microfilm reels of the papers of this time. That becomes the responsibility of those wishing to retain the article given there are no other obvious sources to draw from. Resolute 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I believe he did a google search. I wasn't questioning that. What I was saying was putting something up for deletion immediately is somewhat lacking in good faith. It was speedy'd in minutes and then when I rejected the speedy and restored it was put up for Afd immediately. There comes a point when people have to give the creators of articles a chance to actually do the sourcing, we can't expect every new editor to source the second they do their first edit on an article. -DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hardly call an editor with over 1K edits a new user, and the page was AFD'd a week after the speedy was removed. I would hardly call that immediately. Just an FYI.--Terrillja _talk 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  His account was 8 days old at the time. And it was afd'd a week later because it was deleted after your speedy (32 minutes after creation) and I undeleted it 6 days later and then less than 24 hours later it was afd'd. -DJSasso (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi. I haven't done much here at Wikipedia, but I have done a thing or two on the Ice Hockey Wiki, fron which this is done. This hockey team is legitimate and there are several others that are in the same boat- senior amateur hockey teams that operated at the same level as the National Hockey League of the day. Yes, at the same level then because the pay in the pro leagues was relitavely low and these amateur teams could pay some under the table and also get the player a job. Anyways the West Kootenay League was one of the best senior leagues in the country, and produced two world champions pre-World War II - the Kimberley Dynamiters and the Trail Smoke Eaters. More info can be gotten even without going to British Columbia to crank through microfilm reels. There are some digital archives available online. If we can't find the unusual, the offbeat, the overlooked on Wikipedia then where can we find it? Fanofpucks (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sympathetic, but Wikipedia isn't the place for "the unusual, offbeat or overlooked". It is for what is notable, and notability is defined by what was written in independent, reliable sources. Ultimately, the only contention here is the need for sourcing to show notability. I don't expect a delete result at this point, but if a subsequent discussion leads to a merge/redirect to the KIL, this can always be reversed once those sources are found. Resolute 02:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but nothing there addresses why this team meets wp:n. You have argued for the league, but this team's involvement in the league does not make it inherently notable. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Terrillja _talk 02:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep High level team in a high level league. Coy Cup champions. Notable enough to me. DMighton (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any, you know, policies that this is based on or is your !vote based on personal opinion and conjecture?--Terrillja _talk 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but several of us have already noted that this team existed very near the top level of hockey at the time of its existence. Frankly, this isn't a WP:N issue, but rather WP:RS. Resolute 03:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well without reliable sources, there is no proof of notability. They are linked.--Terrillja _talk 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And to quote WP:GD If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. These sources almost 100% exist in archives in a number of cities in Western Canada. As such its not a valid delete candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something most likely should have coverage and public notability doesn't mean that there is any. I wasn't alive in the 1920s, so I can't tell you if something should have significant coverage or not. For all I know, the games were informal and insignificant to the general public, so I don't see any proof that there is significant coverage, even in the archives. For example, Jonathan Kotula won a world series of poker tournament, which most likely would have been covered by the media, by someone notable, something. But he wasn't, even in the slightest. So it was deleted. Redirecting the article to its member organization preserves the history and if the sources are found, they can easily be added.--Terrillja _talk 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Jonathan Kotula won a non-notable tournament at the WSOP. That is hardly grounds for a fair comparison. Patken4 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per a lack of reliable sources covering the subject. Until these sources are added, notability is not proven. I will be happy to rescind this vote if these archived newspapers are accessed, and if this ends up being deleted, anyone should feel free to create this again with sources. But as it stands, the lack of reliable sources makes this article unverifiable. Mm40 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2010 (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.