This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
@AusLondonder: Hello, Why are you systemaitcally removing articles about notable sports governing bodies which have been standing for about 10 years? Yes, they can be expanded and more sources added, then please do tag them as such. But to claim that they are unsourced and not notable is not true. Do you have an anti-sport agenda or something? Sauer202 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sauer202: that's a weird question and insinuation. I don't think I've ever heard of an "anti-sport agenda". This article has absolutely no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. WP:ORGCRIT requires articles about organisations to have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this article has zero and should be deleted unless some are located and added. AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It very clearly seems like you are pushing an agenda when you nominate certain types of sport shooting for deletion, like Guam Shooting Sports Federation but not Guam National Shooting Sports Federation, when the "sourcing" that you cite is clearly at the same level. A speedy deletion as you have done to this and similar articles is unsuitable for articles about national organizations which have stood for 10 years on Wikipedia. Do you expect sources to be added in seconds, or else? Editors must be given time to respond to these threats. Sauer202 (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to make unfounded accusations. If you come across other articles that you feel do not meet notability requirements please nominate them for deletion. With regards to this specific page, the fact it has lacked sources (and indeed content) for 10 years actually increases my concern. If you believe this organisation is notable, please add sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done lots of hard work to make these articles. They have stood the test of time for 10 years. Then you come and promote them for speedy deletion, and they are gone in seconds. It would be better to mark them as undersourced and give a timely deadline for when they must be improved, e.g. a week. It is unreasonable to require editors to make such improvements within this short amount of time. I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia's guidelines. The requirements you refer to for notability are sufficient, but not necessary for an article to be notable. Your selective choice of articles that you promote for deletion makes it appear that you are on a crusade against the IPSC. Sauer202 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
