Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muddy York RFC

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 was keep. Appears to just barely meet the bar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy York RFC

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Muddy York RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about an amateur sports team, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for sports teams. Three of the five footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own self-published website and a YouTube video and the self-published blog of a photographer -- and the two that are from real media are (a) a webzine article about said photographer winning an award for a photograph of the team, which is not evidence of the team's notability since they aren't the subject of the article, and (b) a newspaper photoessay by that same photographer. But notability is established by the existence of written third party, third person analysis of the subject's notability, not by the existence of photographs or YouTube videos -- so none of the sources here are doing anything at all to get this over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Just to be clear, this is not an attack against the team -- I have personally known people who've been directly associated with it, including two people whose names are in the article. But Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform, so organizations aren't automatically entitled to have an article on here just because their own self-published web presence verifies that they exist -- making them eligible to have a Wikipedia article would require evidence of much more coverage in reliable and independent sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a source that may best have demonstrated notability, the StarObserver, the team isn't mentioned other than as part of a list of participating teams. Which is not the focus of the article. It is notable that there's a 'rugby tournament that tackles homophobia' and this is being covered by a longstanding third party source, but I'm agreed that this wiki-article is advertisement from that fact for a specific team that doesn't met those criteria itself. Nic T R (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (vote changed), the Globe and Mail coverage and references for the photos are substantial enough to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. PKT(alk) 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A photoessay winning a photography award may speak to the potential notability of the photographer — but it is not evidence of the potential notability of the photo subject, because the team is not who the award was given to. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True Bearcat, but an internationally-published photo journalism report is in itself a GNG, the other references merely speak to the international status of that piece. Part of the difficulty is, is that 2016 photoshoot is from the same person as the 2015 piece that was in the Globe and Mail ... and I didn't notice that until later. But there's other GNG sources out there, in particular I added an in-depth 2007 National Post reference today. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, a photoessay is not in and of itself a GNG-making source either. To count toward GNG, a source has to verify information, which can only be done by using words. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think you are wrong User:Bearcat, as the photo-essays do include words (as most do). But what has that to do with the extensive, detailed, National Post article I added that is all words, and one picture? How is that reference not good enough for GNG? Nfitz (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A source has to include substantial prose content, not just a brief paragraph of text — which is precisely why, for example, news blurbs don't count toward GNG, glancing namechecks of a subject's existence within a source whose primary subject is something else don't count toward GNG, sources which merely quote a person as a giver of soundbite don't count toward GNG, and on and so forth. And also, GNG still isn't passed by the existence of one "extensive, detailed National Post article" — GNG requires several sources of that calibre, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the paragraphs of in-depth text in the National Post article just "a brief paragraph of text"? Please just apologize for the WP:BEFORE failure and move on. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please go back to remedial reading comprehension class. I didn't say the National Post article was "a brief paragraph of text" — that sentence was clearly and unmistakably a response to the claim that a photoessay containing one paragraph of prefatory text renders the photoessay into a GNG-assisting source. I specifically said the problem with the National Post source is that GNG requires a lot more than just one source of that calibre. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I would agree that coverage of the World Press Photo of the Year 2017 award in respected papers such as the Telegraph and the Toronto Star meet the notability bar. Coverage in the GayStar News doesn't, at least not by itself. Please update the article to cite a couple of the reliable sources and I'll be happy to change my assessment. Cheers, PKT(alk) 13:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the G&M 2015 article and the photoessay were already referenced in the article. Though references could certainly be improved. Either way, we judge the notability of the subject - not the contents of the article - as per WP:NEXIST. But I'll improve the references. Should be some others too - there must be some coverage given I was already aware about the team. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PKT I've now improved those references, and added three more about the competition. I also just noticed a very good 2007 GNG source in the National Post that definitely puts it over the GNG top here. (perhaps that *Treker removes the 'weak'). Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Nfitz sources.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just commenting on this because I'd really like to keep this article, but I don't think I can justify making a keep !vote. If not for the fact this is an inclusive club, this would be readily deleted - there are only two articles on the club that I can see which gets them towards WP:GNG, the Globe and Mail feature story and the National Post not-quite-feature story (which features contact information), written eight years apart. The photojournalism does not lend itself to notability at all. Bearcat's right on this. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are essentially correct on the two articles - but I don't necessarily agree on the reason. Have we ever had a good discussion on photojournalism - is WP:PictureIsWorth1000Words or WP:PictureIsNotWorth1000Words :)? In retrospect though, it's probably moot, as the problem with the 2016 award-winning photo-essay is that it's from the same author as the 2015 G&M piece ... so it isn't necessarily a second source - but rather an extension of the first ... but the 2015 G&M adds (barely) enough text and context to be in, itself, a source, and we should be (barely) at GNG with the 2007 National Post piece (and for context of foreign editors ... both National Post and the Globe & Mail are national newspapers ... not local). There's plenty of other trivial mentions about matches, tournaments, etc., in the media, that I haven't bothered referencing. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2020 (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/Muddy_York_RFC&oldid=964546837"