Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Falcons

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. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Falcons[edit]

[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)

There are many issues here.

The first is that the main subject of the article in its current state, is that of a very minor local semi-pro football team. Its WP:GNG-worthy coverage appears non-existent and only gets a few brief mentions in local papers, and even then, the subject of those mentions are in WP:ROUTINE game summaries for the Racine Raiders. This article definitely reads very WP:FANCRUFTy.

Second, it appears this article was originally created for a team in the National Soccer League (Chicago) before it was taken over by various IPs earlier this year to create the page for the semipro team. This is obviously an inappropriate action and possibly should be split out and this page reverted to its original intent.

However, the original article was created using only two references, both being stats pages, which is typically insubstantial to meet WP:GNG. Not sure if the NSL has any "automatic" presumed notability for WP:FOOTYN. Due to its age, there is a possibility of printed media coverage that I am not finding, which if that is the case, then it should at least have its own page as it is completely unrelated to the semipro American football team. Yosemiter (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, the Footy project believes the soccer club is notable for the US Open Cup and there are at least some printed refs and books about that at least mention or discuss the Falcons. I would like to see better references used than the stats pages currently on the page. However, I have reverted the article to the point prior to the article overwrite of the semipro American football team because it seems fairly clear that all involved feel that subject does not meet WP:GNG. In a related subject, the same editors that overwrote this article created Asif Ali (American football), which I have nominated for deletion here for having both insubstantial independent sources for GNG and clearly false claims. Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yosemiter (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ this is a prime example of an article that is so bad it should be deleted... not that it wouldn't be served well with two separate articles (maybe yes, maybe no) but until that is determined and cleaned up, I don't think we can accurately assess what we are looking at.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the nominator has withdrawn and there seems to be editors enthusiastic about cleaning this one up, I happily change my position to Keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, kind of. There are two articles here where there should only be one, and Yosemiter has done a good job of describing the issue. The gridiron team is clearly non-notable, despite the sources all of them are primary, and some of their links (Asif Ali) probably could be AfD'd as well. The football team appears absolutely notable for winning the U.S. Open Cup in 1953. I don't have a subscription to the site and can't verify the quality of the article, but I can say they were definitely mentioned in media at the time: [1] I would recommend restoring the article to the revision on November 2017, which is just about the football team. SportingFlyer talk 23:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please note that the original article I created was about a defunct, notable soccer team (which won the US soccer national cup!) - it has since been hijacked by an IP about a gridiron team. No comment on their notability. If both are notable, the article needs to be split. If the American Football team is not notable then strip it back down to the soccer team. Giant Snowman 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I was unfamiliar with FOOTYN standards (which is why I made sure to alert the original creator), I am willing to withdraw this nomination based on reverting back to the article about the football team. I have since found they are mentioned in some books, but I am not sure on the significant coverage there to meet GNG. I am not positive I agree that winning the US Open Cup in 1953 would have been well covered then as mostly amateur or semipro teams competed for it at that time (such as the NSL Falcons themselves). That might be a discussion for another day though. But right now, we seem to agree that the nomination for the American football team is a theoretical delete/revert additions. Yosemiter (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple period sources and want to flesh out the soccer article but am loathe to do it with the way the article stands at the moment. You're right in the sense the cup final didn't have a great level of coverage but it was discussed in newspapers in the areas where soccer was popular at the time (St. Louis, Chicago, Brooklyn) and Sports Illustrated did run the scores of the semifinals and finals. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I ahve the article back to the likely notable subject. Please add your sources and remove the ref improve tag once added. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the article. I've struggled a bit because I don't have full access to the newspapers and the OCRs are typically terrible, but have improved the article/sources. I'm particularly frustrated since I haven't been able to find anything using internet searches in 1950s Chicago-area newspapers - the Chicago Public Library has online newspaper access, but I'm not local to Chicago and can't review it, but I have a feeling there's more information out there. SportingFlyer talk 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content for the original notable subject. Strip out the crufty addon stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 14 September 2018 (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.