Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentia Young Islanders

: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 no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

=[[Valentia Young Islanders]]=

:{{la|Valentia Young Islanders}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Valentia Young Islanders}})

Non-notable, junior, Division 5, Gaelic football club from an island in one of Ireland's counties. Lacks multiple, substantial, independent RS coverage. Was PRODed, but an IP removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 02:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep  As per NotBW, ItsZippy, and Cavarrone, we have WP:GNG sources.  In addition, the founding date of 1905 indicates that there are WP:NRVE resources.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

:*I don't know if you meant that - my vote was a delete. I'm not quite sure how routine news reports about a sports team in any way satisfy GNG. Every non-notable sports team will have some coverage in some newspapers sports pages; there is nothing here which suggests that the team has had any significant coverage, beyond what is expected of every other sports team on the planet. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

:::"Routine" coverage is the kind of coverage that Obama gets.  WP:ROUTINE that the previous poster cites, as a hidden Wikilink, is part of WP:Notability (events), and this topic is not an event.  "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG identifies a source that is not trivial coverage, and even within the context of events, no WP:ROUTINE-type coverage meets the definition of trivial coverage.  Possibly the previous poster's viewpoint is that, as per the nutshell of WP:N, that the coverage is not "sufficiently" significant, where a notable topic is one that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large...over a period of time".  But if this is the viewpoint, how does the previous poster objectify it...and what about that "over a period of time" factor?  I haven't looked at any of these sources, people seem to mostly agree about what is there, my main point is that even if there are questions about the "world at large's" interest, an institution this old needs to also be considered in terms of its WP:NRVE coverage that is not available on the internet.  Also, I recently referenced a sports team in New Hampshire that won a state title, so I know that it is not the case that all non-notable teams get coverage, this particular team was an 8th-grade girls team.  Again, getting routine coverage is an indication of notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

::::I understand where you are coming from, I just don't believe that the coverage we've seen is enough. There is one news report about an injury and another about immigration, both from the same source. Other might disagree and, if that is the case, then the article will be kept. Personally, I am not convinced that two news stories from a single newspaper is sufficient coverage to establish notability for a sports team. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::An article about an injury? You mean, an article about an injury that ends in a court case. And that is certainly not routine. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:22, 28 February 2012 (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.