Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kane County Eagles

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 Userfy. I have moved to User:BU Rob13/Kane County Eagles. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County Eagles[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing better at all and this is apparently only a local American football team part of a proposed league, still seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I searched in LexisNexis Academic and found 40 articles, mostly in the Chicago Daily Herald, which is a fairly significant paper (circulation of 100,000ish). The coverage passes WP:ORGDEPTH in many cases and WP:ORGIND in all cases. It's weakened by the fact that this is a local-ish paper, but as far as local papers go, it's got a fairly high circulation. Compare to Hartford Courant, which is certainly regional, and has a circulation of 128,000. I'm inclined to keep this. I can't provide access to the articles here for other editors to evaluate (copyright, etc), but anyone can email me to get copies. Pinging @SwisterTwister and Cbl62: to hopefully reconsider. ~ Rob^Talk 17:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, this is not only a member of a proposed league. They played in an active semi-pro league from 1992 to 2008. ~ Rob^Talk 15:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally semi-pro teams are not kept, although there are exceptions so it's possible. I questioned the notability in 2010 on this article and it still seems to be lacking. I would change my position of it were presented, essentially enough to pass WP:GNG would do it for me. As it stands now, it seems to be more of a self-promotion which is a reason to delete. Editors may find it helpful to review this discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: As I stated above, I've found offline sources. If you care to email me, I'm happy to forward them. It's difficult to make a judgement that this does not pass GNG without seeing the available sources. ~ Rob^Talk 16:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be satisfied with good faith entries into the article.--Paul McDonald (talk)
  - Notability is not determined by article content. In any event, this is outside where I do content creation, so I have no interest in developing the article further. I'd be happy to give access to my sources to anyone who wishes to, though. ~ Rob^Talk 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is true, but without knowing what that notability is, I have to exclude it from consideration. Plus, there are many reasons to delete an article based on either its content or lack thereof.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you support userfying to my userspace until such a time that I can clean it up with the references I found? ~ Rob^Talk 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support allowing BU Rob 13 to userfy. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support (and even encourage) userfy. Research, find out stuff, write it up, prove me wrong, make Wikipedia better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Userfy per the rationale of BU Rob13 above. WP:AGF and WP:DGF about BU Rob13's assessment of the presently unavailable offline sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage like this of a non-professional, non-NCAA team (one that plays on a local high school football field) is not enough IMO to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. It is comparable to the coverage local papers give to high school football teams. This type of coverage, on the other hand, is significant and makes it a closer call. Similarly significant coverage from another non-local source would likely tip me to the "keep" side. Cbl62 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2016 (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.