Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Indoor Football League

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 delete. I note that no reliable sources have been adduced in this discussionl. In fact the keep side have declined to provide them - as it would detract from the experience to list them. I'm afraid that AFD doesn't work that way. Source it or lose it essentially sums up the GNG. I'm open to reviewing further sources but in their absence the delete arguments are the policy based ones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Indoor Football League

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

Procedural nomination. 2009 Southern Indoor Football League season & 2010 Southern Indoor Football League season just expired as endorsed prods (given argument: Non notable sports league, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG). Before deleting these two season articles, it's probably worth analyzing whether the league meets the relevant notability guidelines. Does the league merit a Wikipedia article? If so, what should be done with these season articles? What of the 19 or so teams listed at Southern Indoor Football League#Teams? — Scientizzle 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Southern Indoor Football League season. — Scientizzle 20:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gotta say to remove all these at this point. The sources are suspect and the articles seem to be more of an ad for the league than anything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about the league. There's plenty of news coverage, and this is as worthy of basic coverage as any other minor sports league.[1][2] I do not have a strong opinion whether the seasons deserve their own articles, maybe it would be better to include a suitable amount of info into the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The league article fails WP:ORG requiring WP:Independent sources. The article is based on the league's own website. There are sources on Google on a local team in the league from a local paper, however this also fails WP:ORG, as "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is not interest beyond local team coverage in the league as a whole or other teams in the league. There are some hits from oursportscentral.com, however the website's contributions are from fans and does not have editorial oversight to be consider a WP:Reliable source. As for the season articles nominated for deletion, they do not list sources except for external links. Those links are to websites that are not reliable and a non-independent source (the league's own website). At best local sources can be found, which is not sufficient for notability per reasons already stated. —Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There DO exist several independent sources, but it would detract from the experience to list them all. And here I thought Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Just give it a chance and don't demolish the house while it's still being built. (PS, These OurSportsCentral articles link to reliable newspaper sources). Tom Danson (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tom Danson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MINDREADER says that notability should be established before an article is put into WP:Main namespace. Otherwise, the article can be developed as a user subpage until its notability is established. Please provide a sufficient number of reliable sources with significant coverage for this AfD so the league's notability can be evaluated. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how much longer are you going to relist this? Why not just call it like it is: no consensus. Tom Danson (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Danson, can you provide any sources that discuss the league in detail that are above the modest number of local paper stories about the local teams? That would really help. — Scientizzle 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL might be worth a review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a disconnect here. For instance, why are only articles pertaining to the Southern Indoor Football League, a professional indoor league with a nearly national scope, being targeted for deletion, but other, more questionable leagues are not? For instance, the user has not targeted for deletion any articles regarding the Independent Indoor Football Alliance, Ultimate Indoor Football League, Eastern Indoor Football League, World Indoor Football League (2007), or one of the SIFL's predecessors, the American Indoor Football Association, all of which have fewer sources and claims to notability than the currently active SIFL, nor the American Professional Football League, which has only one reliable source. I know I had a dust-up with Paul McDonald when he was putting all the semi-pro league articles up for deletion, but at least he was attempting to ensure a modicum of consistency when applying the rules of Wikipedia. I don't see that in the nominations at hand; the sole nomination of the SIFL seems a little gratuitous to be honest. (Note: This is not meant to be a "Pokemon test" in which the sole arbiter of notability is comparability to other like leagues; I am merely stating that the notability guidelines should be applied equally. If the SIFL can be brought up to standards, but some of the others cannot, then by all means nominate them for deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - quick comment yeah, but I've moved on. Hope you have too! It's not personal. We've agreed on stuff at times too (you did a good job on one particular article I can rememeber).--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bother to read the nomination, it clearly explains the why the SIFL is at AfD. To spoon-feed it: The season articles were expired prods and could have reasonably been deleted, but it seemed to me like the topic would benefit from wider discussion on the ideal breadth of Wikipedia coverage. Feel free to nominate any other articles for deletion that makes sense to you...Can you provide sources for these articles? Do you have anything to add beyond WP:WAX? — Scientizzle 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want a broader discussion, don't single out just one article or one particular league. Apply the rules consistently. That is all I ask. When you just pick out one article in general, it looks gratuitous and it looks like bad faith, which, despite Wikipedia's assertions to the contrary, is far too common. The fact is, by Wikipedia notability standards (which is not what WAX discusses), none of the aforementioned leagues are significantly distinguishable from the others. If we have a discussion on this one league alone, then we should have a discussion in general regarding all the leagues in question. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ALLORNOTHING seems relevant. Discuss this article on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, Bagumba. As if this discussion wasn't broad enough already, I should try to include an undetermined number of superficially related articles? Why? I have little knowledge of and even less interest in leagues like this one. I was simply trying to clear out CAT:PROD with a modicum of consideration for consistency. Namely, is this league notable and, if it is, does it merit these individual season subpages? Why don't you quit wasting my time with "it looks like bad faith" junk and nominate the articles you feel should be deleted or fix this one? — Scientizzle 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To answer your question, I don't know and don't have time to find out. My hunch says keep, but it would take several days for me to prove it. And if you have no interest in this, then why did you nominate it for deletion? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There definitely should be editing, however the primary page on the SIFL should remain. The season-by-season pages however could be incorporated into the solitary Southern Indoor Football League article, and those seasonal pages DELETED. Considering there are pages on football leagues that never even played a game, a league that's had more than a couple seasons is what it is.Sturmde (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not particularly convincing. Please expand on this article's merits with respect to WP principles. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the league article. Delete season articles, merge any useable content into the sections on the main league article's page. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:!VOTE, please provide an explanation to justify keeping, or discuss sources that establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's stubbornness like this that makes me proud to be an inclusionist. Tom Danson (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a vote (one word Delete, Merge, Keep). It's already been pointed out a few times on here and been pretty clearly stated by a few other users. Minor league articles are generally notable, as almost all pro and college sport leagues have some indy verifiable sources available. Individual seasons for minor leagues are a different story and team are generally not, esp the ones listed here that don't have much info that's not already included on the main article. A quick Google search shows some references. Does the article need work? Yes, lots! Should it be deleted? No. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already !voted above and I don't wish to belabor the discussion here, but given the continuing commentary on each of the foregoing "keep" !votes, I think it may be worth restating that GNews shows literally thousands of articles covering the activities of this league, in newspapers all over the country, over the course of the last several years. It is argued that these articles cover the local teams in each community, but I don't see how this makes the league a "local" establishment unworthy of coverage here. This is a real league of national scope playing games that are being covered extensively in real newspapers all over the country. The detailed season-by-season articles need not be kept, but I can't see how the encyclopedia's coverage of the sport of arena football would be improved by deleting the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its WP:WABBITSEASON until someone discusses specific independent reliable sources that have significant, non-routine coverage. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions." WP:ORG says they cannot be local. The coverage as I have seen is for the a local team, and not for the league as a whole. Let's not exaggerate the "national scope" either; the league itself is named "Southern Indoor Football League" and is reflective of the teams locations. —Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the name. It's somewhat of a misnomer dating from the earliest years of the league. The league merged with another league that includes areas not in the South, but for reasons unknown never changed its name. I don't think very many people would consider New Jersey or Erie, PA as the "South." I'm not making a judgment keeping or deleting (quite frankly, I have a busy work schedule this week and don't have time to examine the news coverage and filter it into the articles), but keep that in mind. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2011 (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.