Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex 73's

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. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex 73's[edit]

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

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

All 900+ words are unverified to any reliable sources, failing the notability guideline for 14.55 years, now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Every other team in the Provincial Junior Hockey League have articles. - SimonP (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some refs. A ProQuest search finds 3,700 articles on them, so plenty of reliable sources. - SimonP (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is has SOME sources, I've removed anything else that wasn't cited (IAW the verifiability policy). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are thus removing your deletion request? - SimonP (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator who has found a consensus that the page in question meets the notability guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But on a personal level, are you now supportive of the article remaining to get to that consensus? - SimonP (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't consider three local news reports over the span of 1.17 years to be significant coverage, but I of course support leaving this discussion open to allow other contributors to evaluate otherwise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an administrator's approval to retract your own AfD nomination. You can certainly do that yourself. Ravenswing 04:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to imply; I should have been more verbose. I want the discussion to run its course and attract as much attention as it deserves, obviously deferring to an administrator if they determine that consensus warrants early closure. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team in question meets WP:GNG and there is room for improvement. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which was not the case upon nomination nor at this time. As for [a] poorly written article not being grounds for deletion, I have no objections to the demolition of that straw man. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Also, mass deletion of unsourced info is bad etiquette per WP:POINT and is considered blanking. Consider inline source tags in the future please. DMighton (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point doesn't seem applicable based on a reading of that page. The verifiability policy says that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There's currently a spate of activity in the article; when it's done, I'll again remove all unverified claims in the article in accordance with that policy. As for inline source tags, I have considered it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you will be reverted. Do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced. as per WP:POINT. DMighton (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're reading those pages in their entirety.
The verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." There are encouraged caveats, but they do not abrogate the wherewithal to remove any unverified material.
The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point says, "If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content... do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced." You quoted the third part, which depends upon the first, which isn't the matter at hand. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I read just fine. Actually - it is the matter at hand. You were disruptively making a POINT. WP:POINT does not allow you mass blanking. You unfairly removed content, it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users.
I would also like to point out that according to WP:BLANK, instead of the mass removal of information that you don't find adequate, list for deletion (which you did) - not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Also, WP:USI recommends that you ask for citations. Initially, you were WP:BOLD, but now that it was questioned... requesting citations is better etiquette. DMighton (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were disruptively making a POINT. Given I'm wholly unaware of it, can you educate me as to what point I'm attempting to make by removing "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it"? You unfairly removed content What exactly is "unfair" about removing claims that lacked sourcing, a process provided for by the verifiability policy. I didn't redact the page's history; it's all still there to be read and sourced if possible. […] it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users. When it's challenged, unverified claims should only be reintroduced to an article with "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." […] not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Again, I need your guidance on exactly what point I'm attempting to make. I removed the unverified claims from the article because they were unverified, not as an end-run attempt at manual deletion. As it stands, 81.92% of the prose is unequivocally unverified as required by policy, and—without regard to the outcome of this deletion discussion—if it continues to be so, I (or possibly anyone else) will remove it duly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not looking for a pissing match - this is getting into the realm of TL;DR territory. I've told you my view and I believe you are wrong. It seems we will not be agreeing with each other and that is fine. The "disruption" and "unfairness" I see is you removing content that other people may have sourced if you had of actually gone to the bother of tagging as unsourced - that is my quibble. This impedes others from possibly rectifying the situation. Instead of allowing the AfD process to play out as it should, you started blanking content. As none of the content is controversial, I suggest you take a softer approach. From WP:VERIFY, In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.. As you say, 81.92% of this 900 word article is currently unverified by inline citation - that will take some time. Patience is a virtue. DMighton (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The situation was an article which lacked verification for most of its claims; I rectified that situation. The AFD process (this very page) is still proceeding as it should. Your suggestion has been seen. We have been patient for over fourteen and a half years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improvements are appreciated, and provide additional referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also see the original blanking attempt, which I just don't understand. The nominator then listed for AfD - why not go there in the first place if you knew how to do so? Lastly, as a member of a set of articles, this piece is a necessary piece of a larger puzzle.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from the page's history, it's never been blanked. I, the nominator, proposed the article for deletion because it'd never been sourced in its entire 14+ years; after Flibirigit (talk · contribs) removed the {{prod}} template, I brought it here. When SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) provided a few sources for the first time, and there was a legitimate aticle upon which to build, I removed everything else that was unsourced (in addition to other edits). My sequence of actions was PROD → AFD → V, none of which involved blanking.
As for being "a member of a set of articles": I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that such articles couldn't be deleted. What does that policy or guideline say, specifically, about my malfeasance? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on the blanking accusation - not really sure what happened when I checked it and received a blank page, which now does not happen. Having said that, I am certainly not making any claims to malfeasance - but am simply stating that I much prefer to have an article relatively untouched for a fair evaluation at AfD. I do feel that if this article was deleted, the entire set about the teams in the league would be worse for it.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:08, 1 December 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.