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. Fails some combination of WP:N and WP:V. The argument that they are notable for being a national team doesn't seem to hold sway with the other editors who participated, and certainly, hoping that somebody else will provide sources isn't a valid argument for notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada national korfball team[edit]

Canada national korfball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable sports organization with no coverage in reliable sources, despite apparently being a national team. —swpbT 12:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That fact alone does not demonstrate notability. Being a national team suggests the topic might be notable; it does nothing to show that it is. It's an obscure sport; it's perfectly reasonable that even a national team would not be notable, and the complete lack of sources backs that up. Please remember that AfD is not a vote—comments must make valid arguments to be considered. —swpbT 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be more careful about saying "hoax." There clearly IS a Canadian Korfball Association: [1], [2]. It is also mentioned as a "real" sport in Canada here: [3] (41st in the world, but hey...). It looks like the Winnipeg-area team IS the national team. As I said way up early on, it's a weak keep, but it's not a fake and it's not a hoax. Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] This link has precisely 3 words "Canada Korfball Association". And nothing else even mentions canada
  • [5] This link lists members of IKF and lists a "Canada Korfball Association" located in "Canada"
That's it. There is absolutely nothing else which even mentions that there is a national team. (The rankings do not mention the team either)
Since there is no evidence, I cannot assume that "Canada Korfball Association" == "Canadian National Team" (See WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED). Not one reliable source says that a "Canada National Korfball Team" exists. (In fact, the article contained an unsourced sentence that there is a "North America" team which consists of US and Canadian players combined). I see this as something which fails WP:V.
And even if I were to assume that "Canada national korfball team" is actually the "Canada Korfball Association", it would need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH which it clearly doesn't. Either way, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had though of that at first. But when I got down to searching for sources, I couldn't find even one reliable independent source which talks about either "Canada Korfball Association" or even "Manitoba Korfball Association" (there was one post in a forum but nothing more, and even that doesn't really contribute anything to the information). More importantly, an association would need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH for which there are simply no sources available. I see this as one case where sources are simply not available to even verify the most basic information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, such a solution would obviously not work, because it clearly does nothing to resolve, or even address, the central problem of demonstrating notability. —swpbT 13:54, 8 August 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.