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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Handball Club[edit]

Oxford University Handball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Deletion is proposed because there is no evidence that this meets wp notability standards. An editor removed a prod. But none of the reasons presented by the editor changed that view. --2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above statement is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - has there ever been a discussion as to whether all Oxford sports that award a "blue", or award a Blue" or a "half blue", deserve an article? I am inclined to think that the clubs for sports that award a "blue" definitely deserve an article, but I am less sure about "half blues". We should be consistent. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have not checked for such discussion, but can point you to the current wp notability guideline for teams. It is Wikipedia:NTEAM. Nor, frankly, do I see a reason to view teams as notable that otherwise fail our notable requirements. But are from one of the British universities or those in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand that have such a designation. There's not parity with teams from schools in other countries, or in those countries but dont have that designation.2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams in other countries, and teams in the UK other than Oxford and Cambridge may have other designations than "blue" that indicates that they are notable. It is just one label that indicates they are more notable than teams that do not award a "blue". Yes, other evidence is needed but I would be surprised if the Oxford Clubs that award a "blue" will not be found to be notable using our regular criteria. I concentrate only on Oxford as I know more about it as an Oxford graduate. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US has "NCAA Division I" teams. But I would not think all are notable. Also, if "blue" teams otherwise meet our notability criteria, they would not need another entry point in. My guess is this would be a tough new rule to convince the community to adopt, and my starting point would be one of skepticism. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apologies, but I thought that a discussion about the award of a "blue" might be helpful. I still think it is, but others disagree. This sport only awards a "half blue" and that fits with the clear evidence from the article that it is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your thoughtfulness. I think that if you want to engage the larger community as to whether there should be an exception for "blue" teams, the better place to do that may be on the talk page of the notability section that deals with sports. Best. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)]][reply]

• Look at the Category for Oxford student sports clubs as it shows just how many Oxford University sport clubs do have articles. I suspect they all award a full blue, not a half blue, but I have not checked. --Bduke (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oxford University Gliding Club is another non-notable club in that Category. But I'll stop here, as we are taking the AfD discussion off its target. Best. 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: I maybe agree that there are not notable as an university club. But they played in an European handball event which results in the notability of the club. So the discussion about blue half blue etc. doesn't matter because there are notable because of the international games. I found some sources from other countries about the club. Please look at my comment below. --Malo95 (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. Hi. If we keep the blues/half-blues status aside (which I grant could be misleading), would the Club meet the notability criteria because of its participation in non-university competitions? The club participates in the National league and it participated in European competitions [1][2]. Otherwise, a substantial list of articles on handball clubs that have participated in that European competition should also be listed for deletion (for instance Wacker Thun). --Xaverius 15:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaverius (talk • contribs)

Where is that reflected in a wp notability guideline? As to other handball clubs, see wp:otherstuffexists ... as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Handball Club. 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit confusing, because the Sports criteria specify "for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", but that refers to individual sportsmen. But them for teams it says "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs" here. This means that any of the players who were in the teams that played at the European competition could get a wikipedia entry of their own? Anyways, tht's besides the point, because for clubs and teams the sports notability page re´directs to the general rules; then again, news articles from national [3] and university papers covered the European tournaments, and those are independent and reliable sources as specified in the general nontability guidelines. I want to think a combination of newspaper articles + international competition should be enough?--Xaverius 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see GNG-level coverage of the club itself, which is what we need. Passing mentions aren't sufficient for GNG. Best. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20A5:9F62:A893:774A (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's also a full-page Spanish paper article: "En Oxford se estudia, se rema, y se gana la liga de balonmano," Marca (Madrid), 17/Nov/2006.--Xaverius 11:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Marca site, all I get is this.[4] 2603:7000:2143:8500:BCF5:5F66:95C5:171F (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that's because the online archive only goes to 2009 [5]. The paper article is there.--Xaverius 08:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would I see the paper article, so I can assess its depth of coverage of the team, and its quality? With people seeking to save the article having sought to rely on what are clearly not in-depth articles on the team, and given that that is part of the criteria, that would be helpful. --2603:7000:2143:8500:195:56DE:B473:D081 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep They played in a international competition. And therefor they are notable. --Malo95 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that reflected in a wp notability guideline? 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[[reply]

I did some more digging and found some news articles about the club at the Challenge Cup. You can see if you are participating in an European handball competition you are notable. Sources: Pay to access (Sorry), [6], [7] [8] And all the talk that they are an university team doesn't matter because they played international. If they would had played only at the college championship I maybe would agree that there are not notable. --Malo95 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again - Where is it reflected in a wp notability guideline that if a team played in an international competition, they are therefore notable? Furthermore, minor news stories and passing mentions do not satisfy GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:D1E8:4726:3913:A58A (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the WAZ is not a minor news story. Half of the story is about a german player how played for Oxford and the other half is about the club self. I know there is not a lot of coverage but there are some articles in newspapers from other counties therefor the club has international importance. Malo95 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of players per our rules does not equate to notability of the club. And the level of coverage does not meet the GNG requisite of significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. And again - where is it reflected in a wp notability guideline that if a team played in an international competition, they are therefore notable? --2603:7000:2143:8500:4C3:DFC9:A0E5:F915 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep If this were an American college sports team, I think we would unquestionably keep it. I know UK university sports are organized differently, but is that a reason fordeletion? DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Otherstuffexists is not an argument given weight. Second, the AFD of a UK club in this sport is above. Second, even if it were, you "think" we would keep an American club with this background, but you have not in fact even presented any supporting evidence suggesting your thinking is accurate here. I think the opposite is the case. I believe we would apply GNG or other notability standards, none of which this club would pass. You have not even discussed wp notability standards. And third, of course there are other AfDs of sports clubs in the UK where the result is other than what you imagine. The above AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Handball Club, for example. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Holloway, University of London Boat Club. Perhaps the reason we don't see any college handball clubs in the US on Wikipedia, as you can note here,[9] is because they tend not to meet Wikipedia notability standards. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B544:63A7:9D80:BFC0 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument of Otherstuffexists works also the other way. If similar things doesn't exist at Wikipedia it doesn't mean that everything of this category is not important. And please don't look it as only a college club. You have to put the blue, half blue stuff a side. And you have to ask yourself if the club is enough important with the international coverage in Spain, Germany , Finland etc. for the games at the EHF Challenge Cup. In my eyes you can clearly answer this with yes. Malo95 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malo - Nobody is arguing that the reason to delete the page is that otherstuffdoesnt exist -- the above point is simply a response to the editor's mistaken assumption -- pointed out as mistaken -- that otherstuffexists was a sufficient reason here. It is not. As User:Kbabej has pointed out at AfD (he/she can correct me if I misquote), there are hundreds of university clubs, and not each deserves an article. The point is that this article fails to meet any applicable wp notability criteria. Including GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E500:A993:E39A:99BE (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the two full-length articles in international papers (Marca and waz.de) count as significant, reliable, and independent sources. You, anon, insist they aren't. I could see how univerity newspaper and passing mentions in other newspapers (Belarussian, Finnish), reliable and intependent as they are, may not be significant enough. The Blues status is apparently bot enough because there has been no discussion on it. Other than that, there is the case to be made that taking part in European Handball competitions should be a sports-specific criterion for notability, but since it does not exist as such in wikipedia, this is being held against the article. I'm sad to say it boils down to that, right? How do we propose such notability criterion for handball?--Xaverius 10:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. GNG states that "no fixed number of sources [are] required .... but multiple sources are generally expected" in order to establish notability. The word multiple is purposely left vague in the guideline because "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". I haven't seen that (and in practice, "two" sources - while the bare minimum of "multiple" - is I believe rarely seen as sufficient). I will try to read the paywall protected sources you point to to see their quality and depth of coverage more clearly. (update: the waz article is about a 2007 tournament, and an individual player, but not a full-length article about the team per se). As to where one might go to seek to change/expand the notability criteria for sports teams such as this one, I believe it would be the talk page here - [10]. 2603:7000:2143:8500:195:56DE:B473:D081 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To counteract DGG's argument above, university sports are organized in Britain completely, 180 degrees, differently from in the US, apart from a couple of sports at Oxford and Cambridge (of which handball - a major sport in much of continental Europe but vitually unknown in the UK - is not one) and many at Loughborough, which specialises in sport. Universities do not have stadiums or sports scholarships, the amateur levels of major sports are not organised around university teams and for the most part even when it comes to major sports at major universities the participants outnumber the spectators. As one example of this my son came in the top twenty in four different individual sports in UK student championships, but it would be laughable to think that he came anywhere near notability for this. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sports teams in UK universities can hardly be compared to those in the US, but in this particular case the Oxford Handball club does not play in a University-only competition (BUCS) like, e.g., the OUAFC. It plays in the national league of the EHA and, because of this, it has participated in Profesional European tournaments (EHF CHallenge Cup).--Xaverius 07:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the basis for believing that this is relevant under our wp notability criteria? 2603:7000:2143:8500:81A9:AB39:74E1:92AE (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. This team does not meet GNG because there is no sufficiently significant and sufficiently independent coverage (Oxford U sources are neither here or there in terms of being independent IMO), etc. I find the arguments and refutations of user 2603:... to be generally successful and those of the keep advocates not very successful. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. Although notability is not inherited, any organized sports team associated with an internationally known institution like Oxford University, and participating in a schedule of matches against teams from other schools, seems highly likely to be notable itself. BD2412 T 03:19, 15 April 2021 (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.