Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oisin CLG Manchester

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oisin CLG Manchester

Delete unreferenced non notable amateur sports club, article has major NPOV and COI issues. Mayalld (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited I have edited the page content making the content more encyclopedic. With regards to the "non noteable" amateur sports club comment: Oisin is over 100 years old and has a centenary book documenting its history. There are also thousand of gaa clubs listed on wikipedia and each is as important as the other.Markhallen (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I would concede that some of the really blatant sel-puffery has been removed, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument. Yes, the club has a centenary book. It has such a book, because it published one. Notability depends on OTHERS writing about you, not on you writing about yourself. Mayalld (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply GAA clubs have a high standing in Ireland, much as Football clubs in England. Oisin is not a fly by night sunday league football team. They have an elected committee and contribute to the community both through charitable donations and charitable work. The club itself is a registered charity. The club is notable to the people who have come into contact with it and as with any GAA club, it is notable to people from Ireland or of Irish decent. It is also notable to people with an interest in sporting organisations and history. Markhallen (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Wikipedia, notability is not an abstract subjective concept, for this very reason. Everything is notable to somebody, but everything is not necessarily notable to the public at large. There is a risk of conflating worthiness with notability. Many registered charities are not notable. As such, on Wikipedia Notability is a subjective measure (see WP:N). The club is only notable if reliable independent sources have written about it. Broadly speaking, if the Manchester Evening News has never run an article about the club (results listings and the like don't count), it probably isn't going to meet the notability criteria. Mayalld (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We are featured in the written press regularly. I have some links from internet press we have recieved:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/122/122989_gaelic_football_clubs_century.html

http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/sport/s/364848_oisin_to_four_in_trophy_clean_up

http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/sport/s/364890_oisin_power_to_popular_home_win

http://www.manchesterirish.com/irishstory/mancirishstory4.htm Markhallen (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MEN one is useful as a step to establishing notability, because it is an article about the club in a regional title. The others are from more local or niche publications, and are no more than the match reports that such publications will run on any local team.

The notability requirement is for multiple sources though, and when it comes to the press we are looking for nationals for preference. So, whilst a couple of articles in the nationals would be enough, and nothing from the South Manchester Reporter really counts, you need a few more articles from regional papers. Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it feels to me like you're moving the goal posts. Markhallen (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it looks like that. I'm not moving the goalposts, because the goalposts are there in the links that I've given you. They are, however, not that easy to read, and my comments were a good faith attempt to direct you to where the line is drawn. If the sources exist to show notability, the article will stay. If I let you spend the 5 days of the AFD arguing for notability in ways that don't actually meet the requirements of Wikipedia, that would have been unfair. My comment about the MEN was a starting point. I said that unless it had an article in the MEN it would definitely not be notable, and that it would be a waste of time going further. One article means that there is a possibility of notability. Three would probably settle the matter definitively. Two would be enough for me to assume that there are others, and to withdraw this AFD. Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayalld can I ask a question? Having read your arguments for deleting this article I am still at something of a loss as to why you would want to proceed in doing so. It seems to me like you have an axe to grind against this entry for some reason. Surely a man who has over 10,000 wiki edits to his name can see the merit in keeping this unbiased encyclopedic entry. As for its notability can you please explain why you would want to delete it as "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". I think that active effort has been made to find you these sources of note which you are looking for. Have there been other entries in the same field as this one that have been earmarked for deletion also? Would this count as notability, the organisation being mentioned in the foreign press? http://www.kerryman.ie/sport/gaelic-football/irelands-economic-woes-lead-to-revival-of-gaa-cross-channel-1600835.html Risteard (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC) — Richiecoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Might I point you in the direction of WP:AGF? Accusing me of having an axe to grind seems to be a failure to assume good faith.

I have suggested that the article be deleted because I tried to find sources that showed notability, and didn't find any.

This is the key point. It isn't relevant whether the article is unbiased (when it was nominated it was horribly biased, and even after improvement it remains somewhat biased). No matter how unbiased the article might be, if it isn't notable, it should be deleted.

As you note, deletion is inappropriate unless active effort to find sources had been made. Merely making an active effort doesn't mean that deletion is inappropriate. If active effort fails to find sources, then deletion may be appropriate.

You ask about other entries in the same field and whether they have been flagged for deletion. Please read WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles aren't judged against other articles to try and find parallels. They are judged against notability criteria.

You question whether mention in the international press counts as notability. In the example that you give, no it doesn't. The mention must be more than incidental to count. The press article must be substantially about the club, rather than incidentally mention it.

As I've already said, I don't have an axe to grind. If notability is shown, I will gladly withdraw the AFD. If notability isn't established, the AFD remains. I'm not about to be browbeaten into withdrawing the AFD by accusations of bad faith being flung at me.

Oh, and glad to see that you enjoyed my user page enough to copy the design for your own. Mayalld (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am sorry if you think I'm accusing you of being biased it was just my way of saying that I thought the article was being unfairly judged and not a character assassination or personal attack on your good self. I am still at a loss on your notability criteria however. Can you not admit that the user who set up the article has tried and is still trying to find evidence of notability? If there was a full article about the club in a national paper or on a website which is seen as the leading authority in this field would that count as being notable enough? Maybe the clubs lack of mention in the press on a large scale may be down to a bad PRO (the majority of column inches or web chatter about a club or organisation stems from people within said club).

To say that I am trying to browbeat you into withdrawing the AFD is going a bit far and also in bad faith if the WP:AGF article is followed to the word.

Lastly, of course I copied your user page the whole point of good wikipedia is to learn and I learn by doing or in this case copying. It is open source code after all and as I am new to this contribution scene I'm sure you wouldn't mind. 'Imitation is the sincerest of flattery'. Charles Caleb Colton It is the small thingl like this which i hope might move me away from the — Richiecoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tag in future. It is a confidence thing and I hope you and others in the community will give me the time I need to expand my knowledge of how everything works. Risteard (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article creator is looking for sources, but the system is that for an article to be kept, the sources must be found. It isn't enough to say "somebody is looking for sources", and expect an indefinite stay of execution. I looked for sources before nominating and found none. The article creator has found one source that "counts". AFD gives a minimum 5 day period for the author to fix the sourcing issue (this AFD has been relisted, so it will get 10 days). If sources exist, they will surely be found within 10 days! I say what I've said all along. If sources, independent of the club, can be shown to exist, I'll withdraw the AFD.

The comment about my user page wasn't a criticism BTW. It just made me chuckle. Mayalld (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winner of 2 All Britian is by far enough to establish notably Gnevin (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAA have been informed of this discussion Gnevin (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD'ing an article less than 15 minute after it's created is hardly the best way not to WP:Bite or give the article time to develop. This the article should of at best been {{Prod}}'d or better yet watched and AFD after a week if no notable was forth coming Gnevin (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable club. Derry Boi (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2009 (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.