Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Football Alliance

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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Football Alliance

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

Fails

WP:NSPORTS that gets it past notability either. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep I see enough Gnews coverage that I believe this semi-pro Florida league merits an article per
talk) 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Broad coverage isn't what gets past GNG, significant coverage does. Shallow coverage isn't what we need. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ORGCRITE also says "significant" coverage. ORGDEPTH exempts "the season schedule or final score from sporting events" and says "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements...". I'd submit that covering the fact that a game was played and telling us what happened in the game is merely a routine announcement. The article is an unsourced paragraph, followed by a line from a press release and then little more than coverage of games and their outcomes. There's no discussion of the organization itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." I still maintain that a honest and impartial survey of the Gnews results reveals more than that "a game was played" -- as you continue to mischaracterize it. Not vastly more, but more, enough that !vote remains as it is.
talk) 03:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Will you be making the addition of those sources? I'm not sure why you felt the need to say an "honest" survey....seems like an implication being made. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not be adding the sources. Afd is not cleanup.
talk) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

That's one of my favorite parts of AfD. Keep !votes based on the claim that there are sources, but never actually gathering those sources and adding them in to make the article worth keeping. (Just being "honest" since you seem to imply otherwise) Or in this case, even producing them, just saying that they're out there. So keep for ORGDEPTH, but don't actually show that is passes ORGDEPTH? Got it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided pass
Do not confuse stub status with non-notability covers some of the arguments worth reviewing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Which sources do you feel do that? Aside from the press release used as a source, the articles from 3rd parties are recaps of games, not the org. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets
WP:ORGDEPTH narrowly. -- Dane ^talk 10:34, 4 January 2017 (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.