Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamo Duluth

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. (I'm assuming). Obviously the consensus is to not outright keep, but the target of the merge is being based on Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States#Merger_proposal. Obviously feel free to merge/target the redirect whereever consensus feels is best. slakr^\ talk / 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Duluth

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

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) 13:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is a deletion request based on guesses about the nature of the club. The club is notable. Bandy boy (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't guesses. There are no sources. You need to be able to proove notability with sources. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since you find no sources, you are guessing. "The team appears to be a local recreational team" is clearly guessing on your part. Bandy boy (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, notability requires sources. If you can't source it then its not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. What you are talking about is verifiability, not notability. Bandy boy (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not, I have already pointed you to Wikipedia's requirements to be considers notable at WP:Notability. Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for notability in that it requires sources to proove that it is worth writing about. In otherwords to prove it is notable. If it doesn't have sources we consider it not worth writing about. AKA not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't make up definitions on its own. The common language dictates what notability means. I still wait for any reasons about the non-notability of this club. Bandy boy (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A website certainly can make up guidelines for what it allows on its own website. Are you serious? As mentioned all articles must meet the WP:GNG. This one doesn't. That is really the only argument needed. If you can proove it meets the GNG then it gets an article. Its really that simple. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm serious. Of course a website can make up guidelines for what it allows on itself, I do not say it can't. However, that does not mean the website may re-define words used in the common language. The page you are referring to is actually about verifiability, not about notability, regardless of the words chosen on the page, because it is about how you should be able to verify the information in a Wikipedia article in external sources. The notability referred to on that page, is not a notability estimated by anyone on Wikipedia but is estimated in those external sources. Therefore, I did not understand what you were talking about at first. Bandy boy (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minneapolis Bandolier. Unable to find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that indicate a pass of WP:GNG. Reso lute 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Bandy League. Elassint ^Hi 18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge See Talk:List_of_bandy_clubs_in_the_United_States#Merger_proposal for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bandy clubs in the United States, with the option to later merge to Bandy in the United States if the latter is created (see Talk:List of bandy clubs in the United States - Merger proposal for more info.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 26 April 2014 (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.