Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geelong Baseball Association

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Baseball Association[edit]

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

Deprodded with claim of sources on Gnews, but all I found was one-off, local mentions all from Geelong's own paper. No one has paid any attention to this outside Geelong. I found no non-trivial, non-local sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geelong is one of the biggest cities in Australia and the Geelong Advertiser is one of the biggest and oldest newspapers in Australia – it should not be dismissed as a "local paper" anymore than the Washington Post should be for topics in DC. Anyway, here is some significant coverage in the Advertiser: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Also some coverage in the Ballarat Courier, clearly showing that people outside Geelong have paid attention: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. There are hundreds more articles like this on Newsbank, and a few articles in The Age. Looking through trove nla, I see coverage in The Argus, a major Melbourne newspaper, which shows that the Geelong Baseball Club merged into the Association in 1937 [14]. More significant coverage in the Argus: [15]. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "coverage" I see is just name-dropping it. Tell me how any of those sources is non-trivial. Also, as I said, local coverage isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are The Age, The Argus and the Ballarat Courier local? The two Argus articles, especially, show in depth coverage of what is happening to the club, not just match reports. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but Washington Post is considered one of the top newspapers in the USA, and regularly quoted outside the USA in other news sources. The Geelong Advertiser has no where near that status. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there's a major difference between a "local paper" and a newspaper that serves a major city. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the first places baseball was played in Australia. Regularly hosts the National Youth Championships and has been proposed for Australian Baseball League games. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 14:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's notable because it's notable. Yeah, that works… not. PROVE IT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it useful to yell at fellow editors? Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so they already did. You dismissed them as local, but local sources that show something important make for notability--we do not automatically reject them. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in my local paper a bunch of times. Does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :) Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Jenks24's sources satisfy the notability criteria. --99of9 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regional league that is at least 80 years old in its current form. Plenty of news sources, especially if you look in Australia archives (many not online). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:16, 11 May 2012 (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.