Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Football Alliance
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 Delete all. Courcelles 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States Football Alliance[edit]
- United States Football Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT), contains significant original research (WP:OR), possible violations of conflict of interest and advertising (WP:COI, WP:EL#ADV), and miscellaneous violations of WP:RS, WP:GROUP, and WP:NOT. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are members of the league and each page suffers from the same violations noted above, and to an even greater extent on notability.:
- Detroit Ravens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Columbus War Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ceredo-Kenova Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Monroe County Sting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lima Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles are all inter-connected.Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. [1][2][3][4][5][6] independent news articles I've come across through a quick Google search of the USFA name. The league meets the GNG. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to me, those seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not really significant sources. That said, it would be nice to add them to the article--but even that was done, and even if that was enough to meet notability standards (which NSPORT seems to indicate it does not), that still leaves COI, ADV, NOT, and OR.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. If it were only one or two articles, especially if it were passing mentions, yes. However, This is half a dozen, on a quick search of free articles, all pertaining to the same league. Your argument also involves the suggestion that the teams are less notable than the league. Judging by a search of the Google news archives[7], it seems to be the opposite: teams seem to be covered more than the league itself, which invalidates the rationale behind the blanket delete of all teams in the league. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than notability WP:OR is an actual policy. The others WP:ADV, WP:COI, and WP:NOT are all separate from Notablity. While yes I do believe the coverage is trivial and notability is not met, you believe it is. That's fine, we can certainly disagree. But a violation of WP:OR is a policy violation and is reason enough to delete. Do you have a comment on the other reasons behind the nomination for deletion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I don't see any significant original research in that article-- perhaps a sentence or two that could be excised, but not enough to scrap the whole article. There is some information based on the provided primary source, which is permissible, as long as it is not used to establish notability. (As a side note, I just hope someone besides one of the two of us has something to say about this issue before the end of this discussion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary source when you say "primary source" do you mean the league's official website, or is there some other source on the page that I just can't seem to locate? (Yeah, this is kind of turning into our own personal talk page!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I don't see any significant original research in that article-- perhaps a sentence or two that could be excised, but not enough to scrap the whole article. There is some information based on the provided primary source, which is permissible, as long as it is not used to establish notability. (As a side note, I just hope someone besides one of the two of us has something to say about this issue before the end of this discussion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than notability WP:OR is an actual policy. The others WP:ADV, WP:COI, and WP:NOT are all separate from Notablity. While yes I do believe the coverage is trivial and notability is not met, you believe it is. That's fine, we can certainly disagree. But a violation of WP:OR is a policy violation and is reason enough to delete. Do you have a comment on the other reasons behind the nomination for deletion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. If it were only one or two articles, especially if it were passing mentions, yes. However, This is half a dozen, on a quick search of free articles, all pertaining to the same league. Your argument also involves the suggestion that the teams are less notable than the league. Judging by a search of the Google news archives[7], it seems to be the opposite: teams seem to be covered more than the league itself, which invalidates the rationale behind the blanket delete of all teams in the league. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to me, those seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not really significant sources. That said, it would be nice to add them to the article--but even that was done, and even if that was enough to meet notability standards (which NSPORT seems to indicate it does not), that still leaves COI, ADV, NOT, and OR.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we can keep on kicking the can down the road, but I can't find significant coverage. If the league ever earns an in-depth article in the New York Times or Sports Illustrated, we can always userfy and bring this stuff back. Life is too short to spend it using only primary sources to combat COI. "Sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." Racepacket (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to demonstrate how ridiculous this quote is. "Sports coverage... is not significant coverage." Then, by definition, no sports organization would ever qualify for a Wikipedia article. Coverage is coverage. There are enough mentions for this to be considered legitimate and notable enough for its own article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEMP It's a direct quote, albiet an incomplete one. Here's more, to give you context: "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to demonstrate how ridiculous this quote is. "Sports coverage... is not significant coverage." Then, by definition, no sports organization would ever qualify for a Wikipedia article. Coverage is coverage. There are enough mentions for this to be considered legitimate and notable enough for its own article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all every source mentioned doesn't even discuss the league, it discusses the local teams which of course it's natural in a local small-town newspaper, without more sources that talks about the league in general it must be deleted. If for some reason it's kept in AFD, the team articles should be merged or deleted. Secret account 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe I'm diverting the subject a little bit... but I still don't see a compelling reason for eliminating this page as a whole. The argument seems to be that the sources that are available aren't good enough for a Wikipedia article. I would understand if the ONLY reports were from a self-published source and a few passing mentions in an op-ed (e.g. the New United States Football League), but it's apparent to me that the USFA's coverage in the news, at the very least its teams, are at least notable enough to get press coverage in the markets they play beyond a score listing and a press release. If the teams are notable, then by extension, the league should be notable as well, at least in the context of a summary article of the teams. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course local teams would be mentioned on the small town newspaper, one of the sources listed was about a youth football coach, who is considently the co-owner of one of the teams being arrested for certain crimes. That's typical WP:NOTNEWS stuff. Secret account 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A small town newspaper is still a reliable source. Especially if there are several of them reporting on the same thing.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2011 (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.