Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indianapolis Capitols

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. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Capitols[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)

This article was deleted by PROD a while back and then re-created without any rationale. The sources are lacking and the subject does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline or policy I can find. Be sure not to confuse "CFL" as in Continental Football League with Canadian Football League (I have no assertion that either league is not notable, just that this team is not notable). Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found what I believe to be three incidental mentions here: Daily Advance.com; Windsor Star; and ESPN Radio. What do you think? Include these and save the article, or delete it? I'm still on delete but in fairness I could see others taking a different position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This team existed from 1968–69, so any potential sources that might be available here will very likely be offline. Do we know that a thorough WP:BEFORE search has been conducted here (including searching offline sources)? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not complete any offline searches, but I did review before reposting. The article was previously deleted and I completed as best a review as I could. I'd welcome being wrong if suitable sources can be found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with the sources currently in the article and a newspapers.com search shows [1] [2] and front page game coverage at the Indianapolis Star [3]. Clear WP:GNG pass, it's just that the articles are all historical now. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that AFD is not for cleanup, but "cleanup" is not the deletion rationale. The article was previously deleted and then restored without providing a restoration reason. That's not cleanup. I also find the article doesn't pass WP:GNG, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. If you think that's "cleanup" at least provide some explanation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald WP:ATD subject is WP:GNG - See Jacona's remarks and rationale below. Also no reason to delete WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, several reasons were given to delete. I understand you disagree and that's fine (and consensus may say that the reasons to keep outweigh the reasons to delete), but please don't say that no reason was given. That's not true.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald I meant no reason to delete a defunct football team because this is not a paper encyclopedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING, there are notability standards for inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald Understood, but WP:CONSENSUS is this subject is GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 18:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That has yet to be determined. Consensus is not the same thing as popular vote.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the notability of this team, and why it deserves a wikipedia article, all it has done in its two year lifespan is win a trophy in some (pardon my informal choice of wording) mediocre, not very notable, short lived American Football League, and then collapsed in on itself due to its lack of notability. The very reason why this article is being deleted is the exact same reason why the team died, because it became irrelevant. Sorry if that came off as harsh, but if you want an article of a team like that, you'll need valid and reliable sources. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage to satisfy gng. I grabbed two quick clips at newspaperarchive.com that show, non-local WP:SIGCOV, one about them trying to sign O.J. Simpson, and another that discusses their winning the league. [4], [5]. There are a plethora of sources, literally thousands, if you are willing to look at sources that are before the internet age. Once you go to either newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com, it should be instantly clear that this article meets gng.Jacona (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per T, Jacona and Lubbad85 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosaicberry (talk • contribs)
Keep The fact that the article was deleted as a PROD is a reflection on the incompetence of the administrator responsible for that action and not the subject, which is clearly notable enough to warrant coverage as late as 2018 [6] and citations in several books on football history [7] as well as the 1960s-era coverage found in the sources cited by Jacona. Really, we shouldn't be having this discussion about this article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:47, 4 May 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.