Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartland Trophy
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. Sandstein 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heartland Trophy[edit]
Non-notable object of a rivalry between just two schools -Nv8200p talk 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all college football rivalry trophy articles. Information is useful to have on Wikipedia. VegaDark 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
The above arguement is a terrible defence All XXXX are notable is not a wikipedia policy for anything.HOWEVER, that aside, this one is notable by being the subject of multiple, reliable, non-trivial, references. See: article in the Madison (WI) Capital Times, and article by College Sports Television and article by Athlonsports.com and article in the Chicago Sun-times and article in the Des Moines Register and article at Sports.yahoo.com. If you need more, dozens can be found at the google search. --Jayron32 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- How is saying the information is useful a terrible defense? VegaDark 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Two problems. 1) No subject is ever a priori notable merely for belonging to a category. Notability is applied on a case-by-case basis, and it only exists for a subject if MULTIPLE, THIRD PARTY, RELIABLE SOURCES can be used to add NON TRIVIAL information to the article. If such sources do not exist, the subject is non-notable, regardless of what arbitrary category it belongs to. So the arguement All XXXX are notable means nothing and adds nothing to the AfD. What the closing admin needs is evidence that back up this article's notability. 2) Utility is NOT a criteria for keeping an article. The Yellow Pages are VERY useful as well, but I cannot create an article about "Jim's Plumbing" merely because plumbers are useful to know about, and his address is published in the Yellow Pages. --Jayron32 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said to keep the articles because the information was useful to have on wikipedia. Obviously the yellow pages are useful, but it isn't useful to have on wikipedia like I said in my statement. Second of all, the closing admin doesn't "need" anything. This is a discussion on if the article should be deleted or not and anybody can give any or no reason, and the closing admin will decide what comments to use to make the decision. I don't have to cater my reasoning to fit your criteria on what you think should be used or not in a deletion debate. Third, it is obvious that anyone could find sources for this existing, as is the case for all college football rivalry trophies. Reliable sources wasn't mentioned in the nomination as a reason for why this should be delted. Not everything with reliable sources is notable or useful to have on Wikipedia. There are reliable sources that prove I exist, but I am not notable enough for an article. VegaDark 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am making an unconditional, public apology. My comments earlier were in bad taste and poor judgement. Your opinion is valued. I value your opinion. I am sorry if I made it seem that I was devaluing your point. I clearly did that. I was clearly wrong. I am sorry. --Jayron32 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said to keep the articles because the information was useful to have on wikipedia. Obviously the yellow pages are useful, but it isn't useful to have on wikipedia like I said in my statement. Second of all, the closing admin doesn't "need" anything. This is a discussion on if the article should be deleted or not and anybody can give any or no reason, and the closing admin will decide what comments to use to make the decision. I don't have to cater my reasoning to fit your criteria on what you think should be used or not in a deletion debate. Third, it is obvious that anyone could find sources for this existing, as is the case for all college football rivalry trophies. Reliable sources wasn't mentioned in the nomination as a reason for why this should be delted. Not everything with reliable sources is notable or useful to have on Wikipedia. There are reliable sources that prove I exist, but I am not notable enough for an article. VegaDark 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Two problems. 1) No subject is ever a priori notable merely for belonging to a category. Notability is applied on a case-by-case basis, and it only exists for a subject if MULTIPLE, THIRD PARTY, RELIABLE SOURCES can be used to add NON TRIVIAL information to the article. If such sources do not exist, the subject is non-notable, regardless of what arbitrary category it belongs to. So the arguement All XXXX are notable means nothing and adds nothing to the AfD. What the closing admin needs is evidence that back up this article's notability. 2) Utility is NOT a criteria for keeping an article. The Yellow Pages are VERY useful as well, but I cannot create an article about "Jim's Plumbing" merely because plumbers are useful to know about, and his address is published in the Yellow Pages. --Jayron32 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is saying the information is useful a terrible defense? VegaDark 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote to keep. I think "non-notable" here is a matter of opinion. -JakeApple 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Read User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not subjective. Notablity is specifically not about opinion. It is about "can we find information about this subject in reliabel sources to write an article from". Such sources either exist or they don't. If they exist, the subject is notable. The existance of reliable sources from which to add information to an article is not a matter of opinion. --Jayron32 03:39, 1 December 2006 (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.