Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Arbor Derby Dimes

:{{la|Ann Arbor Derby Dimes}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ann_Arbor_Derby_Dimes Stats])

:({{Find sources|Ann Arbor Derby Dimes}})

Other than a couple of local articles and routine coverage, I haven't been able to find much coverage of this organization. I don't see the significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

:Not sure how it doesn't meet the majority of the criteria:

::*Significant coverage - well, the articles cited do address topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - in most cases the subject is the main topic.

::*Reliable" - Sources are reliable, in English, and includes secondary sources. Primary sources are only used for basic facts to supplement the rest.

::*"Sources" - again, in English and available, from various authors and publications. This is no single-source article, although one author is used twice.

::*"Independent" - there are independent sources.

::*"Presumed" - one would presume that membership in the world-wide Women's Flat Track Derby Association, and being ranked in the upper 50%, would be sufficient.

:The article is a stub at this point, not a Good Article candidate. I don't see the value in removing it from Wikipedia, immediately upon its creation. Frankly, I subscribe to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Removal of content, that by its presence causes no harm, is by definition not an improvement. Seeing as this is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Arbor_Derby_Dimes&diff=618724285&oldid=618713309 second attempt] at deletion by this editor, I am baffled as to why they are so determined to have it removed. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• :There's no presumed significance here as you suggest. It needs to meet GNG, which means it needs to have significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This must go beyond routine sports coverage. You assert that it has this coverage, but I'm not seeing it. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

::It is beyond routine sports coverage. The citations discuss the position of the organization within the community, probably more so than the sport itself. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

:Keep - looks to me to clearly meet the GNG. I count three different news sources all with articles focusing on the league. Routine, with regard to sports coverage, would be listings of fixtures and results, or a rehashed press release announcing an upcoming game. None of these three sources is routine. Warofdreams talk 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• keep I'm liking the sourcing here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

: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.