Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownian Motion Ultimate

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 of the debate was No consensus. After discounting comments by new users, anons, etc., there is insufficient consensus for deleting. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brownian Motion Ultimate

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

nn club team. See the precedent for deleting Claremont Braineaters. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect to Brownian motion--Burg Hambler 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you joking? It has nothing to do with brownian motion.--ragesoss 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete, per nom (& ignore odd suggestion to redirect to Brownian motion, not the same thing at all.--cjllw | TALK 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This page does not violate any of the major standards set by the deletion policy. Furthermore, the precedent is a terrible one. Club sports do not by default indicate not notable, esp. if there is not varsity equivalent. As Ultimate is an extremely popular sport (estimated that over 100,000 people play Ultimate in the United States alone UPA Fact Sheet), Ultimate is a notable sport, and the college level is one of the priemier levels of Ultimate. I really don't see the worth in deleting the page, as it could certainly be of interest, it is not vanity, it is of relatively high quality, and does not violate any Wiki standards. I strongly push for a keep. Metromoxie 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ultimate is a fast growing sport, with international following, worthy of wiki pages.pineapplespatula 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note user's first edit. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This page does not violate any of the major standards set by the deletion policy. I find it ridiculous to consider the deletion of a highly recognized and respected team in a very large and active sport especially at the college level. This article provides extensive insight into the teams successful history and can be of interest to any ultimate player at the college level. I too, strongly push for keeping this article. - Shane, Brown Student
  • Note unsigned. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep without a doubt. BMo is an important team w/r/t ultimate, esp. having won nationals last year.
  • Note unsigned. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ultimate is a one of the most popular and growing college sports and Brownian Motion is one of the elite teams in the sport.
  • Note unsigned. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As previously stated, club sports without varsity equivilents are certainly of note. I am not, nor have ever been a member of the team, but it is a strong and positive symbol Brown University that reflects prevailing attitudes about athletics, community and independence. I find it innane that this article would be considered for deletion. The contributions that B-Mo has made to ultimate fribee as a sport are significant and their accomplishments are more than worthy of record on Wikipedia. Their success as individuals and as a team are NOT exaggerated, as a recreational ultimate play in DC, strangers would ask me with admiration in their eyes, "So, do you know Zip?" -User: petercirincione
  • Note user's first edit. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Informative article on topic of some interest. No harm done. Paul Hope
• Keep Not only is the article not breaking any of the four rules set by the deletion policy, it is a well-written article on a topic that many people are interested in. Brownian Motion is a well-known name among college ultimate players, and this article does a very good job of presenting the history of the team in an unbiased fashion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.16.10.189 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Per the reasons listed above. It's a good page, darn it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.16.26.192 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Why would you delete something as interesting as this major team of a major college sport? Keep it for its witty name Brownian Motion if for no other reason. MSueWillis
  • Duplicate vote (see below). Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable non-notable student club. Fagstein 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin most of the keep votes above are unsigned anons with similar IP addresses. Fagstein 21:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons stated above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.110.224.209 (talk • contribs).
• Keep The information can be verified throught the Brown University Website. See documents at http://www.brown.edu/Athletics/Mens_Ultimate/archives/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.16.35.199 (talk • contribs).
• Keep; interesting article.--ragesoss 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I already posted a "Keep" above, but wanted to expand a little. I mostly add and edit articles about literature and writers, but the thing that has attracted me to Wikipedia from the beginning is its inclusiveness. I ofent use it in my own writing as a first choice source of information. I could easily imagine myself drafting a novel with people playing Ultimate Frisbee mentioned in passing and then deciding I needed a couple of facts about how it is played-- club sport at college-- who plays it-- Ivy leaguers and others-- what do they call themselves? Brownian Motion for heavens sake! This is exactly the kind of odd quirky info that a fiction writer thrives on. MSueWillis
  • Please cross out your previous votes when adding new ones. Thank you. Fagstein 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The club team precedent seems unreasonable; Ultimate has a very large player base these days yet there are no varsity ultimate teams I know of. As club teams go, Brown is certainly notable; the team won nationals last year and on another previous occasion and gets significant name recognition from Ultimate players across the country. Tobinmarcus 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm entirely willing to change my recommendation, but the article needs sources. Fagstein 19:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I would be happy to add references where applicable. Could you suggest some areas that need references in particular (I originally thought that the "external links" at the bottom would suffice, but I see now they are insufficient :)? I would also strongly urge you not to vote for deletion if it is a matter of reference; the page was never given a "need references" tag; had it been, with suggestions, I would have gladly help build a bibliograpy. Metromoxie 22:25 May 13 2006 (UTC)
      • Well for one thing, some media source that shows the group won a national championship would go a long way toward getting this article out of AfD. Every fact in the article needs to be referenced with reliable sources. The group itself can be used for some information, but external sources are needed to confirm all these facts. Fagstein 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Started adding references, will certainly continue to do so. Thanks for the pointers! -- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an interesting article about an important team in a very popular sport in college, high-school and other venues, and it is well-written. Andyw77
  • Note user's first edit. Fagstein 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Re the use of "interesting": Please note that "interesting" is not a criterion for keeping. You have to explain what makes the club notable. This is a discussion, not a vote, and if you don't explain your reasoning, the closing administrator may discount your comments. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting in the sense that it is useful can be criterion for keeping. If it is useful, then it is, arguably, encyclopedic, and thus wiki-worthy. Secondly, as the defending national champions in a large college sport, I would argue that notability has been proven. I would ask, at this juncture, why are they "not notable"? By asserting that they are not notable, but by not giving justification, it is really impossible to defend the article. To quote the great Jerry McGuire, "Help me help you (understand why this subject is notable)"-- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Interesting article on Brown ultimate team. We have many articles on college teams (and need a lot more), some of which can be seen here Category:College athletic programs. However, this is a perennial powerhouse and recent national champion in a sport where college level is the peak. Ultimate fans will want to know about the team. In my view, that positively reeks of notability. -- JJay 21:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Continuing in this vein, I found several interesting and well established articles about college clubs. For example, the Dartmouth Outing Club has, for quite some time, had an article (which, after reading it, I would agree that it whole-heartedly deserves). There are over 350 college teams that participate in the UPA Championship series (see the reference to the UPA factsheet in the article), and Brownian Motion reached the pinnacle of this compeition this past season. As JJay implied above, if this doesn't show notability, I don't know what does. -- Metromoxie 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DarthVader. Too many anon sockpuppets IMHO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed that there are too many anons (whether or not they are sockpuppets is another story). However, note the number of long time users who have posted. By my current count, the "keep"s by non-anon, non-first time users outnumber the deletes. -- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On the issue of notability, Brownian Motion has appeared numerous times on College Sports Television, a major television channel for college sports. If you would like to see some of the videos they have put on television, please look at the CSTV Ultimate Page, which also has several articles on Brownian Motion. -- Metromoxie 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article on a notable sports team. Why on earth was this nominated? Jimpartame 07:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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.