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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Bandy Association[edit]

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

Already covered adequately in the main Bandy in the United States article. No independent reliable sources to establish notability. I had merged/redirected this into Bandy in the United States after a short discussion at Talk:List of bandy clubs in the United States. The merge was reverted. Rather than start a revert war, I bring this to AfD to form a wider consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the present sources are sufficient to establish the notability. Bandy boy (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is only one source on the page and it is a primary source that just mentions it is part of the international federation which doesn't establish notability. I did a search of google for sources and could not find anything that would indicate that it has notability. I did not find any independent reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have made a very thorough search. I have added some more sources now. Bandy boy (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable, independent secondary sources which establish notability. A perfunctory listing in a directory, a mention in an advertisement that somebody plays bandy, a paid chamber of commerce listing, and the FIB directory. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. You really try to make things sound lesser that they are, don't you? Is there some kind of prestige in this for you? Bandy boy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bandy in the United States -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandy in the United States. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bandy in the United States. I can't see how this is notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 00:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, significant, important, should have its own article even if it's short because all oyther national governing bodies have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprucetwig (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, a national governing body for a sport is notable and the information is verified by reliable sources. Bandy guy (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a policy-based assertion or just your opinion? Being a national-level organisation wouldn't seem to be an inclusion criteria. Anything to suggest this passes WP:GNG? Stalwart111 14:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is about the souces, and they are reliable. A national governing body for a sport recognised by the IOC is not just any national-level organisation. Bandy guy (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about national governing bodies at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Do you think that they are generally not notable? Should we delete the ones linked from Football association if they are stubs? I think this should be discussed at a wider level. Bandy guy (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National sports organizations are not inherently notable. To use ice hockey for example many in the southern countries that are recognized by the IIHF have been deleted over the years. Just being an organization doesn't confer notability, articles need to be written about it. If you can find a few sources with in depth articles discussing/describing the organization then it would likely be notable. If you can't then it likely isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give examples of national governing bodies for ice hockey which have been deleted? Could you explain why they should be used as examples as to why ABA should be deleted? Bandy boy (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your earlier comment; no, WP:GNG is not just about reliable sources, it is about significant coverage in reliable sources. If you could provide instances of significant coverage in reliable sources we wouldn't be having this discussion. Stalwart111 22:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should direct that comment to Bandy guy, not to me. Anyway, as far as I can see, Wikipedia has articles about every full, associate and affiliate member of the IIHF and also about some non-members. (Some of these articles have less sources than this one.) So I don't know which organisations DJSasso refers to, when he writes that some of them have been deleted. Bandy boy (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I should have said the earlier comment, rather than your earlier comment. But the point remains the same. Using the inclusion of other organisations as justification for including this one is never a good idea. Each sport has a different organisational structure which might make some national bodies targets for significant coverage while others just busy themselves in the background with general administration. Some such organisations may manage all levels of a sport from grass-roots to international competition while others may exist to manage one competition or event. In the same way, some national organisations exist to manage highly publicised sports (NFL, NBA, NHL) while others exist to manage sports that might occasionally make it on to ESPN4 like darts and orienteering. A great many people are interested in what the National Football League (as an organisation) is doing and so there is plenty of coverage of the organisation itself. Less so the National Dart Association. The test here is WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH, not some magic arbitrary "every national organisation is notable". Stalwart111 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noone has said that "every national organisation is notable", but that a national governing body for a sport may be notable. DJSasso is the one who wanted to make comparisons to national governing bodies for ice hockey, and then I think DJSasso should be able to show us some example of an IIHF member whose article has been deleted, because I can't find one. Bandy boy (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandy in the United States: Bandy is barely recognized by the IoC (it was a demonstration sport in 1952 with Finland, Norway and Sweden participating, but that's it), and Americans haven't participated in Bandy in the Olympics. Per this article. "In the United States, perhaps 300 men, 50 women and 200 youngsters play bandy. All of them live in the Twin Cities, except for a handful from Duluth who drive down on weekends," so I don't see a strong claim for inherent notability. As the association doesn't appear to meet the General Notability Guidelines, I have to vote delete for now, with no prejudice against recreating the article if and when Bandy becomes recognized enough in the US for this association to meet WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht, what do you mean by "barely recognized"? A sport is recognized or it isn't, there's no in-between. Bandy is a recognized sport and the Federation of International Bandy is a member of the Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations. Bandy boy (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's comment Please note that the Bandy boy, Bandy guy, and Sprucetwig accounts are subject to a sockpuppet investigation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is something Cúchullain has done only because he doesn't like that people doesn't share his opinions. Bandy boy (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cúchullain hasn't expressed an opinion here for others not to share. He has posted a sock puppetry investigation because he suspects sock puppetry. It doesn't help your cause to suggest that the SPI was launched because of a difference of opinion, only to confirm that all of the keep opinions above are at least meat puppetry, if not sock puppetry. Stalwart111 23:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that Cúchullain has made an opinion in this discussion. I do not "suggest" anything, I make a statement based on obvious behavour which Cúchullain has not denied. Bandy boy (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandy in the United States per Ahecht's comments with no prejudice against recreation at a future time if it gains greater recognition. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bandy in the United States. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bandy in the United States due to lack of significant coverage of this association in reliable, independent sources. Also, block all confirmed sockpuppets and meat puppets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 10 May 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.