Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Institute of American Football

Add links
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 no consensus. Closing explicitly with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The arguments to keep are extremely weak; providing sources you know not to be reliable isn't helpful. However, without anybody but the nom supporting deletion, a delete outcome isn't possible, and the discussion has gotten unpleasant enough that a relist doesn't seem reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Institute of American Football[edit]

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

Nigerian Institute of American Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PROD'd as "this institute is part of the much broader IFAF making it notable". Inaccurate - notability is not inherited from parent institutions. WP:GNG must be met to support notability. When I initially PROD'd I found no coverage of this organization, and nothing has been added that indicates otherwise (I do not consider "market research" to be reliable significant coverage).

I would be fine with a redirect to IFAF Africa, but since the PROD was contested I feel that a WP:BLAR would also be contested without consensus at AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep + Comment: I thought it would be a neat project to try to save an article from deletion, but so many links discussing the institute have died with no archives, making it really difficult to find any more information on it, but there clearly was more at one time. I personally think that it is notable enough with other countries in Africa having their own IFAF subarticle, and I personally do not agree the article requires deletion now especially compared to how it has looked for 9 years now. But I also trust you have much more experience with this than I do, so if you think deletion is necessary; I will support you because of that. I personally would opt for keeping the article and just leaving the more citations needed tag on top of the article incase more supporting citations are found- because the article isn't bad anymore, it just needs expanding. Johnson524 (Talk!) 10:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't rely on the organization's own website and two sentences in some sketchy market research to support a claim of notability. We need significant coverage from reliable sources. You might want to read the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations to get a better idea of how notability is established. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Premeditated Chaos given that you nominated this article for deletion because you found "no coverage" of the organization, perhaps reconsider given the coverage that I have found ranging from being mentioned in a few sentences to more substantial paragraphs about it. I think these sources can easily be used to improve sourcing in the article and expand it per @Johnson524. I'm leaning towards Keep since it seems to have substantial coverage.
As @Johnson524 mentioned I also came across that "many links discussing the institute have died with no archives" however I was able to find these following sources that are all still online and working:
These are in no particular order. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PiccklePiclePikel for finding these! I would have to double check if some of those sources are reliable enough to be used, but it is really good to see so much coverage is still online! In doing some research of my own, I found one more citation from Ozy (media company) which I have already added to the page 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 16:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @Johnson524, I found that Ozy article as well, it's the 7th on the list. I just went ahead and included the sources generously because even the few sources that are only mentions, which is not enough to establish notability, could still be used in the article to reference certain facts or other things that that one sentence or mention happens to be talking about. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: Oops, didn't see you also found that Ozy link somehow 😅 Hopefully the majority of those links can be used to improve the article in some way! Johnson524 (Talk!) 17:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PiccklePiclePikel, Johnson524, these sources do not support a claim to notability. And frankly the quality and the presence of duplicates makes me doubt you even read many of these. From top to bottom:
  1. Not about the organization, this is just the NAIF getting quoted in an article about football getting played in Nigeria.
  2. Same thing
  3. What makes this site reliable? It's got no byline, no editorial policy, no staff page, none of the hallmarks of professional journalism.
  4. Trivial mention of the name, on what looks like a non-professional blog anyway
  5. Same as 1 and 2 - NAIF getting mentioned in an article about football in Nigeria in general
  6. PM News Nigeria turned into a download link for a zip, so that's a no from me
  7. Ozy.com mention is another single-line mention in an article about football in Nigeria generally
  8. This is a word for word copy of source 1
  9. So is this PressReader source actually!
  10. Another trivial mention
  11. Duplicate of the Ozy source! Come on.
  12. Literally a fan blog, zero indication of professionalism, and it only mentions the organization in a single sentence, again
  13. A blog is not a reliable source

Not a single one of these constitutes significant coverage from a reliable source. I hope you will strike your keep votes because they are in no way supported by the actual fact of the sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Me and PiccklePiclePikel both said that these sources were probably not reliable, and that the only reason PiccklePiclePikel put those on there was to establish that there was coverage of the topic online, even talking specifically about the blogs in his original post saying that they might be useful for further research, not to actually be used in the article. If you see the only one of those sources I actually added to the article was the Ozy.com one because even though it was one paragraph, it did back up some of the information in the article. Johnson524 (Talk!) 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there was no way most of those sources were going to go on the article to begin with- being very clearly not reliable, they were just posted to establish that there was still coverage of the topic still online. Johnson524 (Talk!) 22:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of presenting sources at an AfD is to substantiate a claim to notability. Do you understand how none of these sources support any claim to notability? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand, but I did not post them, I was just backing up the reason for why PiccklePiclePikel posted them. Johnson524 (Talk!) 23:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He posted them claiming "it seems to have substantial coverage", which is blatantly untrue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This article needs additional sources, but it appears that those sources may exist. Deletion is not replacement for cleanup: I would give this article a few months, and if cleanup cannot or does not occur, then it's clear that this article cannot be brought up to notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s existed since 2011. Mccapra (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it appears that it was not nominated for deletion until now. Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup and orphaned articles are in need of cleanup. If it cannot be cleaned up, it should be deleted. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe by some of my recent edits the article is no longer an orphan (via redirects from Nigeria national American football team which is linked on multiple pages) but the article does need further citations for verification. I support the keeping for now but deletion if nothing else can be found to further reliably cite the article. Johnson524 (Talk!) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest, the two users above did their best to find sources and the best they could come up with were, per my source analysis, trivial mentions and unreliable blogs. We cannot retain an article in the absence of sources. Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup, but in this instance, there are zero reliable sources to clean the article up with. @Johnson524, your insistence on keeping flies in the face of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is literally no policy-based argument for keeping this, given the absolute lack of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC - While I agree with you in regard to sources, I disagree with you in regard that no reliable sources exist, at least at this moment. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest, confidently asserting there must be sources without actually providing any is not a policy-based rationale for keeping an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC - Please don't misrepresent my opinion and please don't misrepresent an essay as policy. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what way am I misrepresenting your opinion that "it appears that those sources may exist" and "I disagree with you in regard that no reliable sources exist"? Twice now you have confidently asserted that sources exist. Where? In what publications?
The general notability guideline is the governing standard the essay refers to, which requires multiple reliable significant sources to ensure that the policy of verifiability of information is met. I might ask you not to represent my statements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To revisit what I initially said - this article has had just a handful of edits in the past several years. and two people have had a short period of time to try and find information. Given the topic, I believe that notability may or may not be met, but it's too soon to tell given the neglect. I'm not sure why you can't accept that other people have differing opinions. You're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. You're welcome to disagree with me, but continuing to claim that my opinion is something that it is not is inappropriate. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is not that your opinion exists, but that you are failing to back it up with anything of substance, coupled with accusing me of making misrepresentations when I have done no such thing. (Again, I might ask you to assume good faith).
  • You have argued that it's "too soon" to determine notability on an article that has existed in this state since 2011. If over a decade is too soon, please advise a time frame which you believe is suitable. You may not be aware of this, but old, neglected articles are deleted with some regularity because it is discovered that sourcing does not exist.
  • You have argued that the AfD period is a short period in which to find information. AfDs are customarily listed for a week and this one has been open for two now.
  • You have twice now explicitly argued that sources must exist without actually providing any concrete direction as to where such sources might be.
These are not strong arguments for keeping this or any other article. The strongest argument you can provide is significant reliable sources. You are free to express your opinion, but you must understand that AfD is not simply a vote, it is a discussion - editors are free to refute your arguments if they are weak, as yours are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your responses belie the weakness of your argument regarding your perspective in this discussion. If you felt that they were strong, you wouldn't continue to harass those with opinions different than yours and have confidence that the closing administrator would weigh your opinion accordingly on its own. I would also request that you refrain from using insults in regards to the opinions of others as well. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If calling an argument weak is an insult, you may want to strike "I feel your responses belie the weakness of your argument". Your pattern of accusing me of doing the precise thing you have just done continues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be closed as a no consensus, it's clear consensus cannot be found here given the atmosphere that has arisen. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whether under this title, or renamed under a different title, the topic of American football in Nigeria is clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not the topic of this article though. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nigerian_Institute_of_American_Football&oldid=1110600833"