Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ohio Patriots

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, and possibly mention at Anderson High School (Hamilton County, Ohio). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:40Z

Southern Ohio Patriots

Non-notable minor league (American) football team. Their league, the United States Football Alliance, does not have a Wikipedia article. They return only 19 unique Google hits. They were only founded in 2006 and play their games at a high school. I see nothing in this article that supports this team having any sort of notability. The article was speedied before, but the article was evidently blank at the time, so that is probably not relevant to this discussion. Elmer Clark 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG; non-notable football team.--TBCΦtalk? 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a high school team, or a team with a high school homeground. If the former, weak merge (mention in 1-2 lines) to the high school in question (Anderson High School (Hamilton County, Ohio)?). Will support outright deletion in either case, per the eventual consensus developed here. Also note, the logo used in the article, Image:SouthernOhioPatriots.gif, is a direct copy of the New England Patriots logo, as seen in the top left hand corner of the New England Patriots official website. -- saberwyn 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the logo on their website, but their website does include small copies of the NE Patriots "flag" bit (without the lettering) as decoration. I searched for any indication that they have some claim to being a farm team, but without luck. The NFL hasn't had a farm system for years. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "leauge" doesn't even have an article. Corporal Punishment 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete recommendations. This is not a high school football team; they just use the high school stadium for their games. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the league not having an article. Can be revisted if the league itself is shown to be noteworthy first. Bbagot 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete! Why?! Why are you trying to delete the page on the Southern Ohio Patriots?! The article is not nonsense as you may believe. I can show you so many pages like that page that it is not even funny! Some pages like Southern Ohio Patriots have ten times less information and have never been considered for deletion. The list:

This list is only of football teams like the Southern Ohio Patriots!!!!!--Sportman2 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, if those teams aren't notable then they should go too, although even with my minimal knowledge of American football I know that at least some of those teams played in the NFL. The fact that another page is less in-depth than article X is not by itself a valid reason to keep article X, and the fact that other non-notable subjects have not (as yet) been deleted is also not a reason to keep an article on a different non-notable subject ChrisTheDude 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sportman2, see What about article x?, inclusion is not notability and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The question at hand is whether this article before us now satisfies guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree if those articles are like this one, please delete them all. --Bejnar 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons; this team seems doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Also, after clicking on a few of the team links listed above by Sportman2 it appears that many of those articles also need to be deleted if someone wants to take the time to go through them and do the nominations... --The Way 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There being no criteria on American football teams, one must revert to WP:V and WP:N, which this fails due to a lack of WP:RS. Given the long list of articles of minor league or defunct teams, there seems to be enough critical mass to develop some sort of criteria. The matter should be brought to the American Football Wikiproject to start developing a consensus. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone being hurt by having this article here? I can understand deleting articles that are totally random. But, football is a popular sport so shouldn't articles about football's many leagues and teams be here? I think if the article provides true and liable info it should be kept.--Sportman2 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that no reliable sources exist to verify that the article contains true information. We need a reliable third party source in order to confirm that the information in the article is accurate (and that any future information that might be added later is accurate as well). Since no such reliable sources exist, this article does not pass the requirements set forward in WP:V. Even if it the article was verifiable, there are many who believe that articles on Wikipedia should meet a certain threshold of notability. If you believe Wikipedia should have articles about football teams in America, where do you stop? Are adult amateur teams notable? intramural college teams? How about Pop Warner?? Even though Wikipedia is not paper, it does rely on a an all volunteer group of editors, and they would be quickly overwhelmed by tens of thousands of articles that would need to be evaluated against the basic Wikipedia criteria. The system would quickly break down, and would turn into another clone of Myspace, without the ugly backgrounds and annoying music. Notability is determined by consensus, which is why I feel like a discussion should be started. I personally believe that only current and defunct teams in the top professional league of any given variant (turf, arena, Canadian rules) are notable, including officially associated farm leagues like NFL Europe. I can't think of any reason to include any other semi-pro or amateur team. You may disagree, and thats a discussion that should be had, either at the American Football Wikiproject or other suitable venue. But even so, that discussion will have no bearing on this debate - if the article can't pass WP:V, it wouldn't measure up to any other criteria, present or future. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sportman2, see It doesn't do any harm and It should be about everything. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG notability standards. I haven't found anything that indicates a link to the NFL team. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not Delete How is the article not liable? Sources used to create the article:
League's Official Site
Team's Official Site
Fan Website

Those are all liable sources. You (CosmicPenguin) state that you think only major league or affiliated minor league should be noted here. There are many non-affiliated leagues and teams listed here at Wikipedia. Just take the Frontier League for example. If you think only well-known teams should be listed here then take Wild West C.O.W.-Boys of Moo Mesa. That is a TV show I didn't hear about until today. Sure it could be big among people who like that kind of stuff but I don't like that kind of show. So I wouldn't be the one watching it. Maybe you wouldn't watch the Southern Ohio Patriots but that doesn’t mean their unpopular.--Sportman2 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they were unpopular - and even if they were, Notability is not popularity. I also didn't say that only well-known teams are suitable for Wikipedia, I said I thought that only full-time professional teams qualified. That the NFL and AFL are also quite popular isn't part of that equation. Regardless, as I stated before, the threshold for your article is simply WP:V. And as per WP:V - the team website and the fan site are not reliable, since they are self published (and the fan site seems to be more about the USFA then the Southern Ohio Patriots). The League official website is the strongest of the three - I would be inclined to use it, especially if there existed other reliable sources to bolster it. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would really help to justify this article would be coverage of this team in a mainstream newspaper, since that would be an independent, reliable source. The league's website and the team's website are not independent sources, and a fan website is not considered a reliable source since it generally would not have editorial oversight any more than a Myspace page or a blog would. This particular league is not even listed at Our Sports Central which is a website devoted to independent and minor league sports, which raises concerns about how notable it is. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is unverified, then it should be deleted unless verified; that said, there must be a point along the line from NFL franchises to once-a-month pub teams on the Hackney Marshes where a team ceases to eb sufficiently notable for Wiki. A decision on that point would then allow the rational winnowing of the list of teams provided above. -- 62.25.109.196 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?--Sportman2 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that the community should decide what "level" a football team has to play at to be considered notable. It's just a general comment regarding that list you posted, not specific to this discussion. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor league team without verifiable sources of info should be deleted. Warfieldian 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not heard a legitimate argument in favor of keeping this article. I agree with Warfieldian, that especially notability is required. --Bejnar 03:22, 22 February 2007 (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.