Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Guardians
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. While they arguably may not satisfy WP:NORG (in terms of WP:AUD), User:Jweiss11 has provided sources that show enough notability to meet WP:GNG; I said I'd withdraw the nomination for WP:BLAR if that was provided, and it has been. Since nobody else has commented anything other than a "Keep" rationale, I am withdrawing this. (non-admin closure) Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Orlando Guardians (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)
Per WP:BLAR, the article is being brought here since it should be redirected to XFL (2020)#Teams. The article was copy-pasted from a draft to bypass the AfC process, but it is not ready for mainspace because the article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG (WP:NTEAM directs us to WP:GNG; there is no presumed notability for the team simply having played games). Source assessment tables have been provided at Talk:Orlando Guardians#Notability concern; of the 11 sources in the article and the 20 provided on the talk page, only 1 constitutes significant coverage in an independent third-party source, the rest is trivial or non-independent routine coverage. Notability must be demonstrated, and the sources in the article show plenty of notability for the XFL as a whole, but none for this team specifically. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing that would demonstrate notability. ESPN for example only has trivial coverage and press releases. There's some routine local coverage but per WP:AUD is not sufficient. It may be an issue of WP:TOOSOON but it's certainly not ready for a standalone article at this time. Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and quite frankly not even worth discussing, as the original poster has made several blatant false claims about the sources. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Can you give an example? You've written a significant amount of the article so I can see why you'd want to keep it (discounting a blocked sockpuppet you are its primary author), but you can't say "several blatant false claims" without at least an example. - Aoidh (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- The two sources just added here and here are yet more examples of the trivial sources that can be found, but they are about former players and only make passing mentions of the team; per WP:NTEAM coverage of a (former) player doesn't contribute to notability of the team. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. The most glaring is the Middletown Press article, which discusses the 2020 Guardians' season in depth, far beyond what would be considered routine. I have also added a second source discussing the New York Guardians' quarterback situation from well outside the NYC metro area, a newspaper in Harrisburg. That is two reliable, independent, non-routine sources, which meets the GNG threshold. Several of the other sources cited are from independent newspapers, going beyond what I (and probably most Wikipedia editors) would consider "routine." "Routine" coverage is birth announcements, obituaries, individual entries on a scoreboard—items far more trivial than the coverage that the Orlando Sentinel and New York Post articles have provided. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're not referring to this interview with and about the coach since interviews aren't independent, so would you mind linking what article you're referring to? As I said above the quarterback article is about a player and makes only a passing mention of the team, that's not significant coverage. I'm interested in what Middletown Press article you're referring to, but this is in no way significant coverage of the (at the time) New York Guardians. - Aoidh (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- And there it is. That's the blatant falsehood I'm talking about. Your standard for establishing something beyond routine/trivial is beyond what could realistically be achieved for any entity. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- There what is? Is this your significant coverage? Information about some players and a passing mention that one had
a touchdown to give the Guardians a 14-6 lead over the Los Angeles Wildcats entering halftime
is significant coverage of the team? That is in no way significant coverage and I was worried I shouldn't have nominated this for deletion but if even the article's authors can't come up with better than this, it's very clearly not notable. - Aoidh (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- There what is? Is this your significant coverage? Information about some players and a passing mention that one had
- And there it is. That's the blatant falsehood I'm talking about. Your standard for establishing something beyond routine/trivial is beyond what could realistically be achieved for any entity. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're not referring to this interview with and about the coach since interviews aren't independent, so would you mind linking what article you're referring to? As I said above the quarterback article is about a player and makes only a passing mention of the team, that's not significant coverage. I'm interested in what Middletown Press article you're referring to, but this is in no way significant coverage of the (at the time) New York Guardians. - Aoidh (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Can you give an example? You've written a significant amount of the article so I can see why you'd want to keep it (discounting a blocked sockpuppet you are its primary author), but you can't say "several blatant false claims" without at least an example. - Aoidh (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. In my opinion, this is a clearly notable topic. The team's already played a season of professional football in the XFL (2020), is going to be playing a second next month, and has received plenty of coverage. In addition to all the sources on the talk (and I disagree with some of those "assessments"), other sources I've found include: [1] [2] (a listing of Guardians articles) [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc etc. XFL teams are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- What notability guideline says that
The team's already played a season of professional football in the XFL (2020)
is something that makes it notable? Throwing another huge list at the wall to see what sticks only highlights the lack of notability of the subject. This is about a game and has only trivial information about the team. Rather than breaking down why each of those is insufficient (yet again) I'll ask again, what are the WP:THREE best sources? I certainly hope that isn't one of them. We don't need more "etc etc" and quantity we need quality in the sources.XFL teams are notable
per what? - Aoidh (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)"XFL teams are notable" – per what?
– per having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)- Okay then, what are the WP:THREE sources for that? Where is this WP:SIGCOV? Out of the now 40+ sources that have been thrown together there's 1 that meets that definition. I'm only asking for two sources to meet the bare minimum of what is required of Wikipedia articles, I don't think that's unreasonable. Other than this, what are the two best sources for this article? I will happily speedy close this discussion if the bare minimum can be shown here, that's all I'm asking for. There's no doubt that there's a lot of WP:TRIVIAL sources, but quantity of sources is not an indicator of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're engaging in pooh-poohing. Watch it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Accusing me of "dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration" is not only inaccurate since I very clearly gone to great lengths to examine and consider the points made, but that accusation is also serious projecting. I'm asking for sources, not for comments like that. Let's focus on the content. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're engaging in pooh-poohing. Watch it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Okay then, what are the WP:THREE sources for that? Where is this WP:SIGCOV? Out of the now 40+ sources that have been thrown together there's 1 that meets that definition. I'm only asking for two sources to meet the bare minimum of what is required of Wikipedia articles, I don't think that's unreasonable. Other than this, what are the two best sources for this article? I will happily speedy close this discussion if the bare minimum can be shown here, that's all I'm asking for. There's no doubt that there's a lot of WP:TRIVIAL sources, but quantity of sources is not an indicator of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- What notability guideline says that
- Keep Clearly notable subject with an abundance of significant converage in independent sources as demonstrated in article and by J. Myrle Fuller and BeanieFan1 1here. This is frankly a silly nomination highlighted by the absurd argument that an independent news coverage magically becomes not independent if it includes quotes from interviews with people related to the subject. Nomination should be withdrawn. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what I said, I said quotes in the article aren't independent, not that it invalidates the entire source as non-independent. But when the only relevant part of the source is quotes from the coach of the team, there's no independent coverage within that quote; it's from the team itself. Given that the list of sources is made up of things like this I have to ask, which sources exactly are providing the significant coverage? I have no problem withdrawing this nomination but when asked for examples, there's nothing but vague assertions of notability and lists of trivial mentions. If this nom is so "silly" why is this presented as significant coverage? That is silly. If it's so clearly notable it should be a simple thing to show where the coverage is rather than trying to bury it in a mountain of trivial mentions. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)s
- Aoidh, the Guardians are mentioned outside of the Gilbride's quotes in The Middletown Press article. But even if they weren't, for the purposes of establishing notability, if a reliable source chooses to interview Kevin Gilbride about the the Guardians, and then publishes Gilbride's quotes about the Guardians, that demonstrates that the notability of the subject, even if Gilbride's comments contain falsehoods. You're wasting everyone's time arguing against this rolling snowball. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I was hoping with such "clear" notability someone could provide significant coverage, but unfortunately that has not materialized. I will not be withdrawing this AfD because the sources purported to show notability do nothing of the sort. Interviews like that do not contribute to notability. The issue isn't "falsehoods" it's independence from the subject. The mentions of the team in this source outside of the quotes are trivial, it's a passing mention in the beginning of a game they played in, and a passing mention that "players were finishing their after-practice meetings" something so basic and routine you can't do anything with. As for the snowball, a couple of the article's creators asserting notability isn't a snowball, especially when the keep arguments are inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Notability must be shown, and throwing everything one can Google at the wall to see what sticks does not show notability. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for WP:THREE but there's not even two. It wasn't my intention to respond to every comment but misrepresenting what I said needed to be addressed. I'm still happy to withdraw this nomination if the very basic standard of WP:GNG can be demonstrated, but what's been discussed so far falls short of even that, and stuffing as many links as one can into a discussion does not change that. The links do show notability for the XFL, and this is a reasonable target to redirect this page to until notability can be established at some point, but this article isn't there yet. Again, I'm more than happy to withdraw this if the bare minimum can be shown, but a lone interview isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- How about these sources: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002894/the-orlando-sentinel/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002927/the-courier-news/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116003192/the-journal-news/? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I promise I nominated this in good faith because I was specifically asked to bring this to AfD for discussion, and that I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. ALso, thank you very much for looking for those sources. Let me look over them after I attend to my kids for a minute. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: thanks. I wish it didn't take the fourth editor in a deletion discussion to find sources like that (I'm including myself, I looked) but I'm true to my word; I asked for the bare minimum to meet WP:GNG and that surpasses what I asked for. Closing now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I promise I nominated this in good faith because I was specifically asked to bring this to AfD for discussion, and that I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. ALso, thank you very much for looking for those sources. Let me look over them after I attend to my kids for a minute. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- How about these sources: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002894/the-orlando-sentinel/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116002927/the-courier-news/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116003192/the-journal-news/? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I was hoping with such "clear" notability someone could provide significant coverage, but unfortunately that has not materialized. I will not be withdrawing this AfD because the sources purported to show notability do nothing of the sort. Interviews like that do not contribute to notability. The issue isn't "falsehoods" it's independence from the subject. The mentions of the team in this source outside of the quotes are trivial, it's a passing mention in the beginning of a game they played in, and a passing mention that "players were finishing their after-practice meetings" something so basic and routine you can't do anything with. As for the snowball, a couple of the article's creators asserting notability isn't a snowball, especially when the keep arguments are inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Notability must be shown, and throwing everything one can Google at the wall to see what sticks does not show notability. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for WP:THREE but there's not even two. It wasn't my intention to respond to every comment but misrepresenting what I said needed to be addressed. I'm still happy to withdraw this nomination if the very basic standard of WP:GNG can be demonstrated, but what's been discussed so far falls short of even that, and stuffing as many links as one can into a discussion does not change that. The links do show notability for the XFL, and this is a reasonable target to redirect this page to until notability can be established at some point, but this article isn't there yet. Again, I'm more than happy to withdraw this if the bare minimum can be shown, but a lone interview isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aoidh, the Guardians are mentioned outside of the Gilbride's quotes in The Middletown Press article. But even if they weren't, for the purposes of establishing notability, if a reliable source chooses to interview Kevin Gilbride about the the Guardians, and then publishes Gilbride's quotes about the Guardians, that demonstrates that the notability of the subject, even if Gilbride's comments contain falsehoods. You're wasting everyone's time arguing against this rolling snowball. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what I said, I said quotes in the article aren't independent, not that it invalidates the entire source as non-independent. But when the only relevant part of the source is quotes from the coach of the team, there's no independent coverage within that quote; it's from the team itself. Given that the list of sources is made up of things like this I have to ask, which sources exactly are providing the significant coverage? I have no problem withdrawing this nomination but when asked for examples, there's nothing but vague assertions of notability and lists of trivial mentions. If this nom is so "silly" why is this presented as significant coverage? That is silly. If it's so clearly notable it should be a simple thing to show where the coverage is rather than trying to bury it in a mountain of trivial mentions. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)s
- 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.