Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benchball (2nd nomination)

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 keep. First AfD close (usually toy around RfD), but consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benchball

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Reliable, secondary coverage are limited to mentions in primary education documents. Largely promotional with many primary sourced sections and references about university play of which no secondary WP:DUE coverage can be found. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what we need to see for the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have here a variety of sources, some of which give us exactly that and are enough for notability, while others do not help with that but still provide relevant facts. The best sources seem to be A Dictionary of Sports Studies (Oxford University Press, 2010) and A Year of Primary PE (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022). Neither is a "primary education document" – some help with the meaning of primary in this context is at primary source. I do not see any sources that have only "mentions" in them, but that would not matter, so long as notability is already there. Moonraker (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with @Moonraker that notability is likely already established. I believe there is also sufficient coverage in news outlets to remove any doubt remaining here, I will try and make an edit to the article reflecting this. Regarding the other concern, there had been some more recent edits adding much of the promotional and unsourced content. I have already made an edit addressing this and hopefully removing primary sourced information. GSDiracula (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (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.