Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netball and the Olympic Movement

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 SNOW and Speedy Keep considering the future is noticeable in that a Keep will happen, and considering the article's massive information and sources, it's not something that is emulated in the deletion statement (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netball and the Olympic Movement

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

Netball is not an Olympic sport so the title is a bit misleading. All of the information is found on other articles. Therefore its unnecessary to have this article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: There are a large number of sources documenting the process of netball's efforts to be included in the Olympic Games. Title was consensus given that the sport is an Olympic recognized one but is not on the Olympic program. Title is not misleading as article explicitly discusses the intersection. If the article title is viewed as misleading by nominator, the correct action is an RFC on the name: It isn't nominating the article for deletion. The information is not found in other articles about netball, and the nominator has not substantiated this claim in their nomination by citing the articles that makes this article a complete duplicate. --LauraHale (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks as if none of the claims in the nomination are correct and even if they were true they would not be reasons for deletion. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(snowy), and trout the nominator, this is a good article (since 2011) with numerous references, looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough independent references on this exact topic to prove notability. I also support routing the nominator, for not checking anything before nominating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2016 (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.