Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrom Association of Maldives

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 AGF does not trump V, RS and N. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrom Association of Maldives

Has one non-Wikipedia Google hit. Deprodded. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no reliable sources of notability. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable national organisation representing real sport. Notablity established. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Representing where? Anyway, with one Google hit, I'm not even sure WP:V has been met. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest you actually read both the article and external links, as these address your concerns in a manner that is clear, concise and unequivocal. You might also want to revisit your Google search, as when I tried it I found closer to 1600 non-WP results, including numerous references to the organisation on sites published by the Government of the Maldives. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read the article the and now, and remain unimpressed by the links, which are non-independent of the association. The government also has a page on the installation of internet kiosks. Would that make Internet kiosks in the Maldives notable? As for your claim that you found 1600 Google hits, I say prove it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You claimed that there were no independent sources. I proved you wrong by providing links to 2 different Maldive Government websites. You claimed that only 1 Google result was returned. Again, I proved that to be an incorrect assertion by linking to 3 additional sources returned by a Google search. If you now wish to assert that official government websites demonstrating that the association in question exists, and explicitly establishing its notability are "non-independent of the association" then you're the one that needs to "prove it", because frankly, such a suggestion is fruitloop material. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Source one is the official website
        
        Source two is a directory listing.
        
        Source three is an event listing.
        
        Source four is a listing for the Carrom Federation of Maldives.
        
        None of the sources advances any claim of notability for this or the other association. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Source 2 is the official government website of the Maldives Ministry of Youth and Sports. Source 3 is the official government website of the Maldives Ministry of Education. Source 4 is the website of the International Carrom Federation. Kindly do us the courtesy of rejoining us here on planet Earth if you intend to continue attempting to make a meaningful - or indeed even vaguely comprehensible - contribution to this discussion. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I fail to see how insulting me shows the notability of this association. The fact that a government website or two lists an organization doesn't make it official, nor does it show notability. Here is a brief description of a "Mrs Poole" on a US government website. Is Mrs Poole notable? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand why the listing of a national sporting representative body on websites published by multiple national government ministries indicates both verifiability and "notability" then I'm afraid you're way beyond any help that I'm capable of offering. Given your non-standard interpretation of "notability" and "verifiability", can I suggest you open an AfD for the Australian Baseball Federation while you're at it, because that's obviously yet another one of the "non-notable" sporting organisations cluttering up WP that you appear to have such an issue with. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, reveals 125 Google news hits, 32 Books hits and 13 Scholar hits. Do you see the difference? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already shown you multiple sources. They're in the article. Go read it. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not the one that must be convinced by those paltry "sources". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. Thankfully there are many other contributors to WP who have a better understanding of our content policy that you evidently do. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your continued incivility is unpleasant. The only other comment so far has been to delete. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Carrom Federation along with all other such articles in the category. They are not notable enough to sustain independent articles (yet), but the material is verifiable and should not simply be deleted. PS with regard to Google stats: Everyone knows that football/soccer is more popular than carrom, by a long shot, so of course the Australian governing football body is going to return more G-hits than any carrom body in the world. Let's not be silly. PPS: The other national carrom org articles that have been deleted recently need to be restored to userspace (I would suggest User:Hpt lucky, since that is the principal author of most of these articles, and we have discussed the matter on his and my talk page) so that their content can also be merged into International Carrom Federation under a national/regional affiliates section. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Psst... relisting means you're supposed to talk about it more. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's points are well-taken, but we are talking about a national association in the Maldives (not exactly a media hot spot). Thus, doing Google searches for Maldives-related news will inevitably come up lacking. In this case, WP:AGF should trump WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, isn't notable just because it's from the Maldives. WP:BIAS does not trump WP:V. Punkmorten (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:V isn't an issue, plenty of (primary) sources seem to exist. Given the nature of the group and the potential for bias (wouldn't an equivalent group in a better known location have easy-to-find media sources?) I'll go weak keep. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable merge. I'm all for reducing the bias on wikipedia, and I understand that media sources are lacking. However, this association (as well as all of the other "Carrom Association of"s seem to be minor organizations for a minor (as in being not-well-known) sport. If evidence can be shown that this association is large and popular amongst Maldivians, I will happily change my vote to keep. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that the sport is worth an article doesn't mean that this association is. Again, willing to change if anything encyclopedic can be found. DGG (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here, I think that WP:AGF trumps WP:V and WP:RS. According to our article, the .mv domain is used mostly by the government and large businesses. It isn't surprising that there aren't many sources. Also, how is the sport's being not well-known reason for deletion? I understand the argument that WP:BIAS isn't, alone, sufficient ground for keeping, but deleting the article because Carrom isn't a well-known sport seems pretty biased to me. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline, WP:V is a policy, and WP:RS and WP:N are guidelines. That's 3:1, even if your bizarre interpretation of AGF is accepted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:RS says nothing about knee-jerk deletions of all articles with no secondary sources. There's not really evidence that sources do not exist, so WP:ORG can't really be applied. WP:V doesn't apply, as the material is unlikely to be challenged. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since a Google search leads directly to the association's website which tells all there is know about it, the average user will not be deprived of valuable knowledge. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search for Microsoft leads directly to the organisation's web site. As do searches for FIDE, the International Olympic Committee, and Major League Baseball You seem to be asserting that the possession of a web site makes an article non-notable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And for contrast, the defunct Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL has two orders of magnitude more G-hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lack of Google hits does not make something non-notable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case, it does. Even the hits here are just an address and phone number. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms on what worrying about WP:BIAS leads to. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Carrom Federation, not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. RMHED (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (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.