Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Bulls (American football)

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 Procedural Close. I'm boldly closing this as the consensus is these articles either need to be submitted individually or in smaller chunks where the teams meet the same reasonable deletion arguments. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Bulls (American football)

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

These teams are all members of the BAFA National Leagues, a British American football league. They are all more or less unsourced, and don't seem to meet the notability requirements at WP:NSPORTS. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extraordinarily cumbersome bulk nomination. I've gone through many of the pages and some are sourced in a way that appears reliable, and some are not. Apparently the league was the premiere league in England for many years, so it is likely that sources can be found. But even if the some, many, or all of the articles are to be deleted, it is very likely that it would be for multitude of reasons and that just makes it unsuitable for a bulk discussion. Would reconsider individually (or in much smaller groups), but would prefer them to parsed out over time and investigated properly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot support deleting all these. I've only looked at Cornish Sharks, which though not particularly well sourced, garners regular comment from the BBC and local papers. Some more work in selecting which of these should really go would be helpful, I think. In addition WP:NSPORTS, mentioned in the nom., states "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." —SMALL JIM 12:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Malformed AfD, this massive afd is not suitable for discussion here, because while some of these articles may be not notable some of them do have notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - There are WAY too many articles nominated for a reasonable discussion to take place here. ~~Requested for closure at AN [1]~~. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - One glance at one random nominee, Bedfordshire Blue Raiders, and I can tell ya that's probably a Keep on the merits (and a credit to the encyclopedia to boot) and that this is an overbroad, borderline disruptive nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator - I assure you my intention was not to disrupt. Many of these articles are completely unsourced, and even the ones with sources are quite poorly-sourced. Is membership in the BAFA National Leagues alone sufficient to show notability? I doubt it, considering at least one of these teams' websites has an option to join the team. Anyway, if you find this AfD is too much to deal with at once, I'm happy to go through and nominate smaller chunks at a time. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether they as a class fail to meet a Special Guideline for sports teams, but whether each individual article meets the General Notability Guideline, which involves your doing substantial investigation, one by one, rather than a mass, semi-automated nomination. This is really ill considered here. Don't nominate "smaller chunks," do your due diligence and nominate teams that are not the subject of sufficient independent coverage one at a time. I'll bet that almost all of these pass GNG even if they do not meet the special guidelines... Carrite (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second random glance, Bournemouth Bobcats, looks like a shitty article showing nothing but self-sourcing. Then a quick peak at the Google machine, and HERE'S THE BBC covering their game results in depth. Put a few of those together and something from the local press and that's a GNG pass. Almost all of these are going to pass GNG, I'd grit my teeth and move along... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would only look at smaller chunks if you can logically combine articles based on researched reasonable arguments. For example, maybe (and I don't know) three of the teams actually never played a game and were just formed on paper--that would be a "logical chunk" to me. Smaller groups only make sense if they make sense as a group, otherwise we just have a bunch of smaller AFDs with the same problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now - it appears that the nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE to any degree, seeing as a lot of these either already show evidence of notability, or could easily be improved to show notability. I suggest this, GorillaWarfare: Improve each article, one at a time, and if you don't find anything of use on an article, then AfD it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this; to say that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed would be an understatement. Also, as Carrite says, this does seem pretty disruptive. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:21, 29 June 2013 (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.