Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallahassee SC

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. No prejudice against re-nominating some of these separately. Hopefully any new debate will have less of a sock smell... Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee SC[edit]

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

Tallahassee SC (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)

Non-professional clubs (will be adding several more), who don't pass WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

AFC Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nebraska Bugeaters FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Central Texas Lobos FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biloxi City FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Onel5969 TT me 17:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Nebraska Bugeaters FC should not be deleted because it meets the threshold of notability as outlined by WP:FOOTYN. The club owns two federal registered trademarks.[1][2] It plays in a league with a national cup, Gulf Coast Premier League. This is specific to the threshold of notability outlined in WP:FOOTYN specific to WP:GNG. This league is a member of a United States Adult Soccer Association by way of direct affiliation.[3] Please note that National Premier Soccer League and United Premier Soccer League are the same level of sanctioning. Bugeaters FC is an affiliate of EFL Championship club, Huddersfield Town A.F.C..[4] Additionally, the club has transferred 3 players to pro clubs in England in the past 3 months.[5][6][7] Finally, there are many independent national articles about Bugeaters FC.[8] Jonathancol (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)This !vote is this editor's only contribution to WP. Onel5969 TT me 23:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:351yjp.2.2
  2. ^ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:351yjp.2.1
  3. ^ https://www.usadultsoccer.com/usasaleagues
  4. ^ https://www.htafc.com/news/2019/may/huddersfield-town-and-bugeaters-fc-announce-development-relationship/
  5. ^ https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/17744091.bradford-park-avenue-sign-former-hull-city-youngster-and-nebraska-bugeaters-ace/
  6. ^ https://bpafc.com/bradford-park-avenue-announce-the-signing-of-goalkeeper-jack-bennett-for-the-2019-2020-season/
  7. ^ https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/gallery/maidenhead-utd-fc/147708/new-signing-danny-whitehall-hits-the-ground-running-for-maidenhead-united-fc.html
  8. ^ https://urbanpitch.com/descending-the-pyramid-exploring-the-buzz-behind-the-nebraska-bugeaters/
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - being in a league which is eligible to participate in the national cup does not meet WP:FOOTYN. The team must have actually played in the tournament (and not in the qualification for the tournament). Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The club definitely meets the WP:GNG guideline. The additional items clearly meet the full threshold. Further, there are two other leagues who have the same hurdle which I have pointed out, yet, only this league is singled out. Those have many clubs which are less commonly known and have not been connected and affiliated with top level pro teams. It is further odd that this page has existed, been edited many times and is just now flagged. The # of my edits shouldn’t have any impact on the threshold, which the club definitely meets. I did join in 2009 since you’ve pointed this out. Jonathancol (talk)00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Jonathancol. Bugeaters FC definitely meets the WP:FOOTYN criteria. Remember, it notes that "The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG." *Generally* is emphasized. The cup criteria is just guidance, not the rule. Also, Central Texas Lobos *did* play in the 2018 US Open Cup. It's on their wiki page. So, they meet the GNG with no problem. The cup criteria as a specific rule (which it isn't) for GNG wouldn't be an equitable rule anyway if taken in isolation. The availability of national cup play is different for clubs in different nations. It is easier for a non-professional, lower league club to take part in the FA Cup than it is for a club with the same notability in the US. The notability of US soccer clubs should not be measured the same way as soccer clubs from England or other nations. As such, the pages you are seeking to delete should not be deleted solely on the very narrow reasoning you are putting forward.DC (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Central Texas Lobos did not play in the Cup, they played in the qualifying round for the cup (which is not the same), and did not qualify.Onel5969 TT me 03:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teams must be certified by the USSF to enter the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup, even in the qualifying rounds. It is not just a "sign-up process". Therefore, I'd think that the team that the teams who have played in the qualifying round are playing in the USOC, which most involved in the soccer community tell you is the same or at least adjacent too. MuskadineGrove (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we are grasping at straws now to uphold some agenda which is clearly unfounded. I have the utmost respect for your contributions, specifically to film, of which I have a degree in and common contacts. Your efforts are more than tireless at that level. Oddly enough, there is a similar threshold of notability that applies, so I definitely get where you are coming from. That said, I am confused by you singling our this league and clubs which you may have only found by way of the notability.Jonathancol (talk)14:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going by notability then all teams in the National_Premier_Soccer_League as well as many other lower league teams in other countries would fall under the same guidelines for deletion. AndersLindergaard (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:FOOTYN is really more of a rough guide than a firm guideline, the question really is do these clubs have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I don't have time to look through all five of them right now. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a cursory search I would think the Bugeaters are at least a weak keep and probably a full keep. These probably shouldn't have been bundled as they all require before searches on WP:GNG grounds, combined WP:FOOTYN failure isn't really enough. SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gulf Coast Premier League as possible search terms, no evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 08:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep As others have pointed out, at least some of these are clearly notable. No prejudice against speedy renominations against each of these individually, but this is an inappropriate bundling due to the differing notabilities. Smartyllama (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second the above. It is clear some of these are not notable, but others are. In specific I'd say Delete: Tallahassee SC and Biloxi City FC; Keep or Draftify: Nebraska Bugeaters FC, AFC Mobile, Central Texas Lobos FC. Pirmas697 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while WP:FOOTYN "is really more of a rough guide than a firm guideline", doesn't mean they have a pass at meeting WP:GNG, which other than the routine local coverage which would be expected of a minor league club, none of these passes. Onel5969 TT me 03:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the deletion is attempting to say the WP:GNG is the same as the WP:FOOTYN, which I'm not sure they are. MuskadineGrove (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover those criteria are out of date and heavily biased in favor of preserving English clubs, which while not a conversation for here, is a massive problem. My beer league club is more notable, more organized, and more stable than many of the English tier 8 clubs which are given a free pass. We should have more preservation of information, not less.Pirmas697 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:FOOTYN "is really more of a rough guide than a firm guideline"; Tallahassee SC, AFC Mobile, Bugeaters FC, and Port City FC all meet the criteria of local media coverage. Central Texas Lobos, Port City FC, and Bugeaters FC have played in qualification of the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup, which makes it so they are all "teams that have played in the national cup" as the qualification round of the USOC does require eligibility by the US Soccer Federation. I say keep AFC Mobile, Biloxi City FC (Port City FC), Central Texas Lobos, Nebraska Bugeaters FC, and Tallahassee SC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuskadineGrove (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC) This !vote is this editor's only contribution to WP. Onel5969 TT me 23:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MuskadineGrove's comments. Notability has been established for listed clubs. gotroot801 • talk 13:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep – these definitely shouldn't be bundled, as per Smartyllama. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile-on keep per above comments and FOOTYN. Sports teams with good enough coverage should not be deleted without good cause. SounderBruce 04:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the references given, GNG is clearly met in some of these cases. No prejudice against listing individually if GNG not met for some teams. But how about a little WP:BEFORE first. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just like to point out to the closing editor, that not a single one of the keep !votes has provided the type of in-depth sourcing to show that any of these teams passes, WP:GNG, and they clearly do not pass WP:FOOTYN. The only sources provided are a nice in-depth article from a non-RS source (urban pitch) and several token mentions of the Bugeaters team. The Tallahasee and AFC Mobile teams have nothing but routine local coverage. The Bugeaters turned up a whopping 8 hits, mostly local coverage, with a couple of brief mentions, the Central Texas team turned up zilch, while the Biloxi team turned up 2 local coverage articles. Onel5969 TT me 04:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually several users have, and I found even more sources for the Bugeaters. Your assertion is demonstrably false. Smartyllama (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus sources for the Lobos ([1], [2], and [3]), Biloxi City ([4] and [5]), AFC Mobile ([6], [7], [8], possibly [9] which is for some reason blocked by my office firewall but seems like it might be good, and [10]), and Tallahassee SC ([11], [12], [13], and [14], [15]). And that took me all of two minutes. If I had more time, I could find even more. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with local sources as long as they are about the team itself and independent of it, which these are. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there is policy against local sources as per WP:ROUTINE, all of which the above sources fall under.Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me where WP:ROUTINE bans local sources. I don't see anything of the sort. It bans routine coverage, which may include certain local coverage, but local coverage can be non-routine and routine coverage can be non-local. Also worth noting that WP:ROUTINE is part of the notability guidelines for events, which is completely inapplicable here. It would be a good argument against notability for individual games or seasons for these clubs, but nobody's saying those are notable. Furthermore, many of the sources provided are from a regional or state level. So basically none of what you said applies. Smartyllama (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First line, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." (highlighting mine). Announcements of games, arenas, transfers, etc. are all routine. And the non-local coverage are little more than mere mentions of the teams. Since a team would also fall under an organization, also take a look at WP:ORGDEPTH, which clearly states, "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies", which virtually all of this coverage would fall under. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 27 August 2019 (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/Tallahassee_SC&oldid=912848278"