Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Bag Football

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D-Bag Football[edit]

KEEP--- this HLS intramural dynasty is legendary. This is not vanity, they are not overly promotional.--Pibb55 04:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable article on a non-notable intramural football team, probably vanity; delete AJR | Talk 23:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Memorializing an HLS tradition->not vanity. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.243.50 (talk • contribs)
  • This team has been a fairly notorious bunch at Harvard Law School the last three years. Arguably more people know about them on campus than some of the more famous professors. Keep. 140.247.42.198 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intramural football at Harvard Law School is a central part of the school social scene. Keep user: baltodomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.191.185 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - even ignoring the references, its a university football team. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwinian Eventualist 00:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP---So what if it is only a "university football team?" For example, there is an entry on "Maine South High School." What makes that entry notable to anyone outside the city of Park Ridge? So, we've arbitrarily decided that a random suburb in the Chicago-land area is sufficient enough to garner interest, but what occurs at arguably the most known educational institution in the world isn't? Seems to me that perhaps some people's fire is fueled due to this being a "Harvard" team--and that isn't right. Sorry but it just isn't. As for non-verifiable? Well, let's go back to the same Maine South entry....its says that they have one of the top wrestling programs in the state. Now is that statement verifiable? I mean, what does one of the top in the state denote? B/c if that means being ranked, they aren't...and haven't been for a while. So perhaps it's a false statement. Or perhaps it's vanity---some measure of self promotion. But it's allowed. Well, so should this. Furthermore, there is no analogy to be drawn between an intramural team and a ping-pong table in someone's basement. Intramural teams in the past have garnered attention, obviously to different degrees, but still. Does anyone recall the attention given to the guys who named their team the "Fighting Whities"??? So, don't dismiss something just b/c its an intramural sport. This all being said, I think it's great that we are having a discussion.66.30.15.64 06:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)AK[reply]

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional"

--"Wikipedia: Vanity Guidelines"

  • Commentary = D-Bag football represents a sliver of the student-life and athleticism at Harvard Law School. Though not impressive in a singular capacity, this article educates the reader about a long-running tradition at Harvard Law School while dispelling some of the dated or untrue rumors/public perceptions plaguing this institution. Deletion of this article opposes the very essence of Wikipedia and the intrinsic value of user-edited information that taps the "long-tail" of human knowledge. KEEP {{--140.247.240.55 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston|140.247.205.92}}[reply]
    • Note: Many of the above impressions were garnered through "Jimbo's" [the founder of this site] presentation of Wikipedia at HLS. Please consider his recorded philosophy of Wikipedia if you find this entry to be repugnant to the goals of this on-line resource.



  • KEEP. Captures the essence of the Ivy League law school athletic experience. Intramural athletics are a long tradition at Harvard. Remember..."The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.191.185 (talk • contribs)
  • D-bag football has attained near legendary status at the Harvard Law School. Wikipedia should keep this article so that their memory may live on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.47.250 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't see any reason to delete this. To delete this would be demoralizing to not only the rich in tradition D-Bag football team, but also a blemish on this otherwise great site. Furthermore the D-Bag football team represents the pedestal that we all hope to one day stand upon. "Keep". 128.255.184.191 01:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An intramural athletic team is entirely unnotable. Naturoma 02:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An intramural athletic team is notable when they represent the underlying values of athletic competition at elite educational institutions. Harvard Law intramural football is the largest student activity at the largest law school in the world, with nearly 1/7 of the entire student body participating. KEEP.

HERE IS VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, SEE THESE LINKS PROVIDED: The D-Bags are very similar to the University of Texas Law School Legal Eagles, a intramural football that the Univ. of Texas finds appropriate to list in its rare library collections: [1]. Playing intramural football has also been noted in applications for Kaufman Fellowships at Harvard Law School. See James Walsh at [2]. Law firm partners list intramural football on their website bios: see Joel K. Goldman, HLS '90 at Greenberg Traurig: [3]. Legal giant Charles Alan Wright was a dedicated intramural football coach. See: [4]

KEEP.

  1. The UT intramural football team is in the archives of that schools library because it has continuously existed for 50 years. The Harvard team has existed for three. Moreover, just because something is in that library does not mean that it should be in this encyclopedia.
  2. Unless Harvard Law has really gone downhill, Kaufman fellowships are given out for on the basis of legal ability, and activities such as intramural football are only minor details.
  3. Joel Goldman is only one man, especially in a sea as big as G-T. The fact that his team was important to him does not mean that we should have an article about it, and it certainly does not follow from Goldman's biography that a page on this team merits inclusion.
  4. None of the reasons that Charles Alan Wright is actually notable have anything to do with law school intramural football, and we don't have any articles on the intramural teams that he coached (nor should we). Naturoma 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To an outside observer, law school intramural football may appear to be trivial if someone has never experienced the camaraderie of athletic competition in an intense and grueling academic setting. This misunderstanding on the parts of certain individuals is not the problem of the intramural participant nor the Wikipedia. Intramural football is it is, and has been for decades, an axis of student social scenes not just at Harvard Law but colleges, universities and graduate schools across America and the UK. Surely teams who embody the entire spirit of the great intramural tradition are notable, much like the 1985 Chicago Bears are notable for embodying a football attitude all its own. In addition, the fact that the a team has been around for only three years is not a sufficient condition for being non-notable. The Florida Marlins have two World Series titles, despite only being a team for 15 years. Are they less notable than the Houston Astros, who have no titles but have been a team for 40? Baltodomer 02:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)baltodomer[reply]

  • Question. Are Harvard Law people so full of themselves even when they are still students or have recently graduated that they think every time they get together to play flag football the world should sit up and pay notice? Sheesh. Herostratus 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that they want the whole world to notice. Only those that might happen to type "D-bag football" into Wikipedia.

It seems like there's a lot of debate over something that supposedly doesn't matter. Long, involved discussions on whether is something is relevant are oxymoronic.

  • Delete as utterly non-notable. I would consider Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability in the article, although there are clear assertions in this AFD. New folks, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes, and, of course, read the notice at the top of this section. Bikeable 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individuals who advocate the deletion of this article are making conclusory statements about its worth, such as "delete as utterly non-notable." How about an actual discussion of why you claim its not notable? Many here seem to be confusing non-notable with unfamiliarity with sports/athletic competition in general, and intramural sports in particular. Baltodomer 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, please. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An article on an intramural team of law students is not remotely notable. This is an encyclopedia, not the Crimson. Bikeable 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because something is not-notable in your conclusory opinion, and because you're not interested in it, doesn't make in not-notable. Could you provide an argument about why it's not notable, rather than just a conclusion. For instance, several people above provided good arguments why its notable:

(1) Intramural football is a large part of student life at a very important institution. (2) The intramural football team that is the subject of this article was an especially well-known team, not because of wins and losses, but because it reflected all the joys, sorrows and camaraderie that represents student intramurals. Thousands of students play intramurals, and then its not notable when a few students who have achieved substantial fame playing said intramurals? The paradigm of an intramural football team is not notable? (3)See this article in the Harvard Law Record

So that's an argument, not a conclusion Baltodomer 04:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) The conclusion that is naturally derived from the argument supra is that this article should be KEPT because the article is notable. 149.101.1.123 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • Argued like a budding lawyer. I'm sorry to argue against a page you put a lot of work into, and I hope you stay and contribute to other articles. However, many things that are important parts of student life are not encyclopedic, and in my opinion intramural football (why would you assume that I don't know anything about it and am not interested?) is one. There is a ping-pong table in the basement of one of the buildings in my academic department, and it is important to many of us, but it certainly does not merit an article in an encyclopedia. An article about an intramural league might be worth an entry, but one about a single team, however heartwarming, is not, except perhaps under rare circumstances. The joys, sorrows, etc, would be better told in a personal web page, blog, art installation, novel, etc etc. Bikeable 04:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture on the page should certainly satisfy the "verifiability" question. The picture clearly shows each of the D-Bag players wearing shirts clearly marked "D-Bag Football." In addition, for those familiar with Cambridge, the flags with the Harvard Crimson "H" clearly denote the site of the football stadium used for Harvard University football. Adzilla 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP. Verifiable? To cite an old proverb, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." And here the picture shall be sufficient proof that the D-Bags do exist.Khanman 19:19, 5 December 2005
      • Comment (in reply to both Adzilla and Khanman) the photo does show that the team exists, but it does no more than that. It tells us nothing about the team's achievements, internal disputes, myths, fans, or anything else that the article talks about. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia basic policies, and this article has no listed sources or references, and I have not been able to find anything about the team on Google. -- AJR | Talk 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia stated goal is �to create a free, democratic, reliable encyclopedia�actually, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth.� If we evaluate this article by those standards, it should be Kept. A majority of people who have commented on this article favor keeping it. Accordingly it should remain in a �democratic encyclopedia.� The article is reliable as evinced by the picture, the article in the Harvard Law Record, and testimony from several contributors on this page. Furthermore, if Wikipedia is going to be the �largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth� it will naturally include articles that might not appear in a standard Encyclopedia Britannica.

Notice that notability is not one of the aims enumerated in Wikipedia�s mission�s statement. Although many of the article's critics mock the subject of this entry because they have not personally heard of this group, nowhere does Wikipedia state that a topic must be famous in order to appear in the encyclopedia. What purpose would an encyclopedia serve if all of the articles in it only addressed widely known topics? A good encyclopedia should help its readers learn about obscure subjects as well as history�s headliners and legends. Keeping this article is consistent with Wikipedia�s stated goals even though several of the article's critics are not personally familiar with D-bag Football. 149.101.1.123 15:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic. However, a mention on Harvard Law School#Student activities might be appropriate. The template at the top of this section is counterproductive; lawyers and wannabe lawyers are used to manufacturing evidence. A more important point is that Wikipedia is a community, and outsiders coming in to vote on a single issue don't know the community standards. This isn't a rules-driven community, but a consensus-driven one. Legal arguments are not relevant. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP---What's the point of rules if a consensus can override something that falls within the acceptable guidelines?? Especially a consensus that is seemingly ignoring arguments with throw away insults (e.g. "lawyers are used to manufacturing evidence). I go back to my earlier point, what makes this less notable than Maine South High School?? Since when does one of the many Chicago area high schools deserve its own entry in a "encyclopedia?" What makes it any more notable than this?? Note that simply distinguishing between this specific high school and this specific intramural team on the basis that "one is an educational institution and the other isn't," doesn't provide any logical argument on why it is more "notable"?? It begs the question: Notable to who??140.247.237.28 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) AK[reply]
    • comment Are you actually comparing a school which has existed for over 40 years and has thousands of pupils at any one time with this team? The school is clearly more notable, as it has had a far greater impact on far more people. In answer to your question, "Notable to who?" it generally means notable to the world at large. Your childhood pet which you loved and cherished, and then buried in the back garden when it died probably was very important to you, but it is does not have wider notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. -- AJR | Talk 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The world at large"??? Believe me, MSHS is a great school--arguably the best high school in America. However, it is not notable to the world at large. Rather, far from it. If it is so notable, tell me the following: Name of mascot, name of head football coach, name of school fight song, what movie allegedly had its final scene shot on the school's football field? You can't tell me these things..at least not without lots of tedious research. KEEP.
  • User Bikeable above makes the best argument so far for deletion, because he uses an actual argument, rather than a mere assertion that "lawyers are used to manufacturing evidence." That statement is as ridiculous as it is uninformed. The arguments above are not legal ones, rather legal-like arguments made under the Wikipedia guidelines which operate as a sort of legal code for Wikipedia. That makes a legal-like argument relevant and certainly acceptable. Either way, there has been strong arguments both ways, and while this is a probably a close call, I believe the weight of the evidence and the importance of the subject matter warrants inclusion in the wikipedia. KEEP. Baltodomer 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice as violation of rule: WP:NO OVERPRIVILEGED MEATPUPPETS. Herostratus 18:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. Herostratus' comments show, unfortunately, what has infecting some of the critics of this article. I can't find the "no overprivileged meat puppets" rule that he cites. The only thing I know about the Meat Puppets was that they were Kurt Cobain's favorite band. Is Herostratus no fan of "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? (Perhaps a fan of hair rock which it replaced?) In seriousness, I would point out, that he erroneously refers to Harvard Law students as overprivileged, that admission to the law school is based solely on merit and that the great majority of the law school student body finances their education not with family money, as Herostratus seems to suggest, but with a combination of need-based financial aid and government and private loans. See the law schools financial aid page here: [5] Correct me if I am wrong, but are Herostratus' comments consistent with Wikipedia rules regarding the debate over articles. Do the rules not state that personal attacks are not part of the discussion.

Herostratus should review the rules prior to re-posting. I personally suggest he read Bikeable comments above as an example of well-thought out criticism of this article. Baltodomer 18:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - lack of valid citations and there problably never could be. Also "Harvard" is hardly UoSA is it; barely old enough to warrant an article its self.... Mozzerati 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly, it would be a shame in the end for Wikipedia to delete this article due to prejudice against the subject of the article on the part of its critics, for example see Herostratus comments above. Baltodomer 20:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and nn. ManoaChild 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Regardless of whether this team is from Harvard or from a superior athletic institution like the University of Michigan is besides the point. I don't see how one can draw the line calling a team unnotable or insignificant solely because of the size or popularity of the institution in question. Assuming this can be substantiated as a real team (the picture would seem to lead me to think it is--perhaps one could contact the student organizations office at Harvard University to verify this?), I would say keep it. I was under the impression that the Wikipedia community is more welcoming to "marginal" entries than World Book or Encarta and its strength is based in large part on its diversity. It's better to error on the side of keeping things in than wrongfully excluding something undeserving of inclusion. LLTF06
  • DELETE - this is something that someone should put on their blog. It is not notable. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of an inside joke. Bill shannon 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever referenced [Maine South High School] above makes an outstanding point. Having perused the Maine South High School page, you will find many unverified claims about skill levels of various sports teams, none of which are verified or linked to any other article or source. And the Maine South page is somehow different than this one? I would challenge anyone of the critics of the D-Bag article to differentiate the Maine South High School article from the D-Bag article. Also, this article is encyclopedic in its style and not written in the style of a blog. It is not meant to comment on events as they happen, or to bring people together. It is written to note a famous team. Baltodomer 03:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I go to Harvard Law and have never heard of this football team until they put themselves on Wikipedia. This is clearly a vanity article.

KEEP- Thanks for signing your comment, Mr. "I claim to go to Harvard Law School." Clearly, if you go to this school, and spend more than 5 minutes a day outside the library you would be familiar with this team. Adzilla 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--I also go to Harvard and I HAVE heard of this team--I'm a fan of one of the rival teams. (The above "delete" vote is clearly one of those students who never leaves the library/tunnels.) Anyone who is even slightly social knows who these guys are. Anyway, if the concern is that they don't go to Harvard, Google thier names--many of them are involved in other school-sponsored activities and will pop up along with a verifiable Harvard reference. five234

    • And yet that delete vote was posted from a Harvard IP address. And I note that the article itself says, "The D-Bags, much like many other HLS flag football teams, struggled to expand their fan base beyond the girlfriend/fiancee/roommate axis..." Bikeable 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because EVERYONE hasn't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable. For example, there is an entry on wikipedia for Reggie Bush. I promise you that not everyone at USC has heard of Reggie Bush. There are some people there, like here, that are indifferent to certain areas of student life (whether it be NCAA sports or intramural sports).Khanman 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fans (defined as people braving the cold and coming to watch the games) are very different then people who are familiar with the team and its exploits.Adzilla 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT: Do not confuse lack of a fan base with a lack of notoriety. You would be hard pressed to find a resident of Cambridge or a Harvard/Harvard Law student who does not know of this team. Baltodomer 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Size of fan base does not equate with notability. Fan base=supporters. Since when is the size of the fan base the measure of whether something should be included. And where would the cutoff be?? How does the size of the Maine South fan base compare with that of the New Orleans Saints? It's obvious smaller...but apparently big enough to make wikipedia. Where is the cutoff my friends??? KEEP.Khanman 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An intramural football team? I'm sorry, non-notable. Furthermore, a google search returns no meaningful results on the first few pages. The article is nonnotable. Cool3 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/647579/posts. Check out this link. An intramural team. Seems as if they are notable. So, being an intramural team doesn't inherently make a team non-notable. Khanman 00:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...More conclusory statements, rather than arguments. And since when is being on Google a criteria for being in the Wikipedia? If we just go off what's on Google, why doesn't everybody just use Google instead of the Wikipedia? Using Cool3's logic, Wikipedia is useless because everything in the Wikipedia should be on Google, and why shouldn't we just get all our information there? Still no critic has risen to the challenge of saying why Maine South High School is in the Wikipedia and D-Bag Football is not deserving, given that Maine South is simply a normal public high school, and the article is full of non-verified assertions. Baltodomer 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is generally extremely poor tactics to point to another article and say "they have an article, so we should too", since most of the other articles pointed to tend to be delete-able. In this case, there is a general consensus that public schools are always notable, although there has been a great deal of heated discussion on the topic. Personally, I don't think the high school example is even remotely relevant to an intramural football team. Bikeable 00:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor tactics??? This is an attempt to point out an inconsistency. I don't think that is "poor tactics," but rather the type of thing that needs to be done in order to ensure that all receive fair treatment.Khanman 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. 100% Agreed. This is ridiculous to summarily dismiss something based on a google search.Adzilla 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        • The argument about Maine South is to point out that many of the arguments made by critics here concerning verifiability appear to be weak when an article like Maine South is approved. If the Maine South article is approved even though it is unverified as part of a general consensus then the general consensus is overbroad and compromises the Wikipedia requirement of veriability. As far as the high school being relevant to an intramural team, you are confusing the subject matter with the type of article they both are and the two articles' verifiability. The point is that there is no meaningful distinction, under the Wikipedia rules, between the two articles in terms of verifiability and notability. The argument that there is no similar subject matter as the D-Bag article on the Wikipedia is not a strong argument for deletion but rather a strong argument for its inclusion as an extention of knowledge previously ignored. And why are public schools notable in general? Are private ones notable as well? Baltodomer 01:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Observing what has gone on to this point, the concern appears to have shifted from verifiability to notability. In terms of notability, then, on first glance this appears to be a close call. However, several reasons lead me to believe that this article is noteworthy enough; that is, worth keeping as part of Wikipedia's encyclopedia. First, the topic of this article concerns a university, and a graduate school within the university, that is arguably the most famous university in the world. An article that provides insight into student life at such a university is likely noteworthy on some level. In regards to the law school, I can think off the top of my head of a famous book (One L) and movie (Paper Chase) dedicated to the topic of life at Harvard Law School. This is not to say that the students of Harvard Law are any more "special" or important tha anyone else; merely to say that the lives of these students are, objectively, more noteworthy to the general public vis a vis those of students at other universities/graduate schools. Secondly, the topic of intramural sports, obviously captured in this article, is one that is uniquely important in American society. An article on this topic (that I am assuming at this point is credible based on the corroboration, verification and strong defense from posters in the know) is likely noteworthy. To develop this point a bit further, intramural sports is a subject that is discussed and researched often in our society, and relevant to many of the debates that go on today, from encouraging a healthy lifestyle to issues of discrimination to the role of sports in the development of children. To expand on just one of these areas, the role of intramural sports in the context of gender discussions is undeniable: just think of Title IX- one of the oft-mentioned considerations in Title IX discussions is the participation in intramural sports among men and women and whether this should impact the allocation of resources. While this particular article does not delve into that particular subject with any depth, at a cursory glance, the fact that this is an all-boys team says something (on a side note, based on the picture, the diversity on this team is noteworthy based on what I know of how students associate at most academic institutions and elsewhere). Maybe I am stretching the point a bit, but i don't think it would be a stretch to say that an article that presents anecdotal evidence about one particular intramural team and its experiences may be useful (read: noteworthy) to someone's research on the subject of intramural athletics. The fact that this team is at Harvard, an institution that is world-reknowned, while also carrying a certain mystique, makes it all the more noteworthy. It is noteable, if nothing else, for what it does to stereotypes about what all Harvard Law School students are like. In light of Wikipedia's goals regarding breadth of subject matter, and providing something beyond what one could find in traditional dictionaries like the Enyclopedia Brittanica, I believe this article is noteworthy and should be kept. --24.61.4.185 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [SZA][reply]

  • comment re "the concern appears to have shifted from verifiability to notability" - As far as I am concerned, the issue of verifiability has not been dealt with. I have already commented on what the photo does for verifiability above, and beyond that photo, no other sources have been presented. I cannot find anything mentioning this team using google. If there are any external sources of information about this team, can someone please tell us where they are? I am also unconvinced as to why this specific team is notable (as oposed to the topic of intramural sport in general, or the value of describing a typical intramural team as part of covering that topic,) but if there were sources that would enable an article to be written about this team without using original research or unverifiable information, I would be far less concerned about the team's notability, in part because the fact that someone else had written something about them might imply some notability. -- AJR | Talk 14:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE...There are other flag football teams that are deemed notable by Wikipedia. There is precedent for the D-Bags' inclusion The Millbury Monsoon are listed in the flag football article. KEEP Baltodomer 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon the presentation of this fact, Bikeable found it necessary to delete such precedent. Is this how the WIkipedia community is run? I find it appalling that some posters, being "wannabe lawyers" (read: law students) are accused of making up evidence when the real offenses, such as destroying evidence, seem to be perpetrated by established and active members of the Wikipedia community. History is indeed written by the victors, but the battle isn't over yet. (see below)

"I rewrote this page substantially. At somepoint, the "Basics of the Game" section, which seemed like a useful introduction, had been removed; I put it back. I expanded a bit on "Variations". I also deleted entirely the section on the Worcester (Mass) league as being too regional and not generally useful or noteable. Bikeable 04:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)"

--140.247.205.92 13:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston[reply]


  • KEEP. Bikeable has rewritten the page simply to make his case against this page? Seems to be in bad faith. As far as disrupting the Wikipedia, this article doesn't cause any of the disruption on WP:POINT. Bookandcoffee and Stifle should reread WP:POINT. WP:POINT is primarily concerned with

(1) spelling - No one has criticized the spelling used in this article. (2) "edits that are not made in good faith, and which, indeed, are designed to provoke outrage and opposition" - This page is a new page, not a disruptive. This article is trying to add to the stream of human knowledge, not disrupt it. It is a serious article about a serious subject, and any comedy that comes out of it is a result of the comedic exploits of the D-Bags, for which the Wikipedia is not responsible. (3) The system is not being gamed. This article does not affect other articles and other articles are not being edited. (4) The D-Bags article is not disrupting in the style of any of the examples listed.

FURTHERMORE, as it states at the very top of WP:POINT that it is not Wikipedia policy, only a guidline. Baltodomer 15:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did edit Flag football because, after following the link above, I saw that it was a particularly terrible page (including, among other things, a sentence about someone sniffing her cat). (This is what I meant about the poor tactics of comparing yourself to another page -- the other pages can be pretty bad.) I added a fair amount of detail, and removed a paragraph that was specific to a Worcester-area league as being too local for the general article. Remember that this is wikipedia, and you can make whatever changes you feel appropriate. The flag football page could certainly use some help. Bikeable 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baltodomer, please do not make multiple votes. I notice that you have made 6 edits which puport to be keep votes: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], and there is one vote by an IP address signed with your name: [12]. (There is also [13] which was removed in the following edit.[14]) Please do not vote multiple times, it may make your position look less credible and could be taken as a sign of bad faith. -- AJR | Talk 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was merely repeating my vote, and responding to criticism. I didn't know this was a vote...after all, it says at the top: "THIS IS NOT A VOTE." So is this a vote or is it not a vote? It's pretty obvious I'm not trying to vote a bunch of times, because everyone can see that I wrote all of those things. If someone was swayed by pure amount of times I wrote "keep" then they would be reading this way too quickly, and would be considering this a vote, which apparently it's not, per the top ENORMOUS box that says, "THIS IS NOT A VOTE." Baltodomer 16:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, it is not a vote. However, when the discussion is closed, the closing admin will count the number of commentors who have expressed an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article (and any other options, such as merging with another article,) and where there is a supermajority, the exact level depending on which admin happens to be doing the closure and on the strength of feeling expressed, it is taken as a rough consesus. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. My main point was that making repeated vote-like comments (i.e. comments which expressly state a keep or delete opinion,) especially when they are unsigned, could be taken as a sign of bad faith, and I felt is is only fair that you be aware of that. -- AJR | Talk 17:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We should have faith in the closing administrator that he or she will do their job, as in: " Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article." From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. I am obviously not trying to fool anyone. If I was really doing bad faith things I'd sockpuppet the whole argument. I think the closing administrator will be fine. Baltodomer 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This article is a fantastic read and communicates information that is apt to be of some interest to some number of readers. One thing I fail to understand -- and this may just show me for one of the unwashed -- is why anyone would be eager to delete an article like this. The best reason I can think of is scarcity, but I'm guessing that lack of storage space is not an acute problem for the Wikipedia. Another reason is that clutter offends the aesthetic sense of obsessive-compulsive types. I suppose, but as reasons go, that one leaves me underwhelmed. If the article contained false statements, that might render it objectionable, but as far as I can tell, the worst that can be said of this article is that it is frivolous (and I mean that in a good way!). User:Charles.Morse
  • Delete, don't send to BJAODN, it's not funny enough for that. Pilatus 01:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of this article assume there are inside jokes, making further conclusory statements about this article. There is nothing in this article that is a "joke" insofar as it did not happen. The standards for verifiability on the wikipedia seem to not be very strict. Much of what appears in mainstream articles have no citations as to specific assertions. See Main South High School. So don't get on your verifiability high horse just because you do not like the subject matter...be consistent. The critics of this article keep morphing their criticism, only to be batted down. First, it was vanity. Now nobody says its vanity. Then, the subject matter was accused of being overprivileged. That was shot down. Then it was both criticized and supported for being funny. Apparently to some, if its funny, it shouldn't be on the wikipedia. I can't find that rule either. Now its verifiability, and you are forced to apply a heavy handed standard to just this article. Baltodomer 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 65.96.191.185 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I am still waiting for someone in favor of deletion to explain why the Maine South High School article is ok. "Because its a public school" doesnt cut it.Adzilla 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are you actually saying that you don't see how a public school, made of bricks and mortar, which will serve many thousands of kids over many years and is an institution central to its community, is different than a small group of students playing flag football? If so, you are quite welcome to put the school up for deletion, although I am pretty sure I know what the result will be. Bikeable 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're making different argument that the supporters of this article. The comparison to Main South High School is meant to show the uneven nature of the Wikipedia's verifiability standard, not the notability argument. Your argument also make the connection between how long an event/thing lasts and its notability. That's a logical fallacy. Consider the Kennedy assassination...very brief, but very notable. Both D-Bag Football and Maine South are notable, despite the difference in time elapsed. You're picturing a flag football team and a high school in your mind and you're saying they're different because they're different concepts. But the argument the supporters of this article are making is that in terms of the Wikipedia, the two articles about these concepts are similar from a verifiability standard. Keep up and try to think outside the box! Baltodomer 21:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, Baltodomer, I went to an even better law school than you did, and I'm sure that's true of many other Wikipedians, so don't assume that we're a bunch of knee-jerk anti-elitists who don't understand the rule of law as it applies to privately-run organizations. --Mareino 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, well this comment presents no argument. If anything, this shows that those in the "delete" camp are resorting to the type of comments that usually show a weak argument. Whoever is "judging" this debate, please take these inflammatory statements into consideration when evaluating everything. No one assumes anything about anyone being an anti-elitist. It's you who have brough the law school debate into the mix here. Quite juvenile for someone who went to a "better" law school than Baltodomer. Asserting that this debate has "nothing to do with me or you" (your response to DGaston) is laughable when you earlier state that you went to "an even better law school" than Baltodomer. (AND WHAT LAW SCHOOL WOULD THAT BE, SIR?)Khanman 04:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment: I find it tragic that many of the posters who oppose this article use the tool of reason to assert their opinion -- yet these same posters immediatly react in such a immature, crass, and, frankly, unintelligent manner when their very arguments are taken to task. No one here is picking a fight: posters like Baltodomer are simply making direct and coherent arguments to defend this bit of on-line real estate and the ideas/knowledge therein. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this article must step to the line with such a colossal chip on their shoulder and such an overwhelming prejudice against the subject matter of the article: all because of the vacuous perceptions these posters have of the related institution and, apparently, those who attend. The errant post above epitomizes the key problem in this "discussion." Mareino should understand that there are many who can, with varying levels of accuracy, claim that their school is "even better" than HLS in any given rubric. Be it the weather, location, a specific program, a moot-court competition result, school size, etc., there are many ways that you can assert your legal education is/was inherently better than Harvard's. But here is the important part -- THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION. The last post was simply levied to state that that Baltodomer's logically sound response to a criticism was a direct result of Baltodomer's "elite" education, an education that is not unique to Harvard or even so-called "elite" institutions. That is wonderful Marenio, but this page is about a Wikipedia article marked for deletion, not assaulting one who happens to use logic to swat down an argument. And it gets better... Mareino wants all to know that s/he and "many other Wikipedians" have the requisite knowledge to "understand the rule of law as it applies to privately-run organizations." That is, again, wonderful, but this page is about a Wikipedia article marked for deletion, not your knowledge of the law. I implore all future posters to adhere to the discussion at hand and refrain from the maligned reasoning that lead to the above invective. --140.247.205.92 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston[reply]
    • You're darn right this discussion has nothing to do about me or you. So stop dragging your prejudices into it. Would an article on an amateur sports team be in the Encyclopedia Britannica? No, so why should it be on Wiki? Explain that to me, stop talking about how you think that you're so much better than us. That's childish and irrelevant. Mareino 02:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor form Mareino, poor form. Please carefully re-read my first reply to your initial comment, you may find cause to adjust your comments. For further enlightenment, read the bulk of this discussion ... there are several explicit reasons why your Britannica test fails terribly. And for the record, since YOU are the one who "went to an even better law school than [Harvard];" perhaps YOU should "stop talking about how you think that you're so much better than [students of that institution]" .... "That's childish and irrelevant"

--140.247.205.92 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston[reply]

Since when is encylopedia britannica the standard? doesnt that defeat the entire point of wikipedia?? Adzilla 03:41, 11 December 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D-Bag_Football&oldid=1142184390"