Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland women's national inline hockey team

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.

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

Only contains primary sources which do not establish notability. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all See withdrawn AFD (cc: Graeme Bartlett). National teams competing at the highest level of the sport. Hmlarson (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment thanks for cutting down the list and not renominating the Namibia team. I will note that WP:SPORTCRIT does not apply to sports teams, so it is not relevant. Also in the references I found that exist earlier, the United States men's national inline hockey team is notable due to many newspaper articles on the topic. I have not checked the others, but it should be a keep for the US mens team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. National teams in every sport or activity don't necessarily have notability if they don't have the coverage to go with it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all are equal, this is an inappropriate grouping. Canada, USA, and Finland get significant attention anyway.18abruce (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As noted above, these articles are not equivalent and should be treated separately. Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply being a national team is not a reason for keeping an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada national korfball team where an article was deleted. However, some of these teams may have third party coverage and I feel it would be hard to evaluate them as one. Best to nominate one by one initially. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I broadly share Lemongirl942's view, but instead of coverage I think the main factor for inclusion should be its record. Perhaps we can set the criteria as having participated in IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship. Timmyshin (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HMLarson. The national anything of anything within something inherently notable and externally documented would be in itself notable at first glance. South Nashua (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @South Nashua: so the National pie eating competition gets a wikipedia page now? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zackmann08:} - First basketweaving, now pie eating and yet these specific articles are about national sports teams competing internationally at the highest level. Fair comparisons? No. Hmlarson (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zackmann08: If the pie eating gets significant external coverage and is being done at a notable level, then yes. Case in point: Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, just replace the pie with hot dogs. South Nashua (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National teams competing at the highest level of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note for all those commenting that they are perfoming at the highest level of competition... The pages for the competitions themselves have been deleted as not notable.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussions were those? Because if world championship pages were deleted than that definitely needs to go for a new discussion. Unfortunately since you spammed so many inline articles for deletion at once a bunch that should have in no way been deleted have slipped through the cracks. It is going to take so much work to get much of these fixed and put back up. Such damage has been caused. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the fact that the individual pages for the IIHF competitions themselves were deemed notable and have been kept as well as the template for these championships. Why lie here? Those commenting should probably note that, as well as the nominator routinely posting false information on related PRODs and AFDs (" Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left").18abruce (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2017 (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.