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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Stingers

[edit]
Surrey Stingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not noteable, Not Referenced, Likely to be Unreferencable, Non-Neutral Point Of View, Not noteable, Limited (And poorly written) Content(And unlikely to be improved given the rarety of edits), insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject, self promotion, and also Not Noteable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#The_primary_notability_criterion Was proposed for deletion previously and the tab removed with the reasoning that there are several other football pages out there. See also the 'Bellsprout' debate and remember just because a similar page exists doesn't mean that page SHOULD exist.Simondrake 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentI have just added more information, and referenced everything I could.Jskivington 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may only vote once, your additions did not make the page significantly better and did not address the main concern that the team are not noteworthy and do not deserve a page. Also, because you want some information to be preserved somewhere does not mean it should be on wikipedia.Simondrake 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not noteable. Valid criticism. See comments by other users above.
  2. Not Referenced. Valid criticism. Sources have been added.
  3. Likely to be Unreferencable. Questionable criticism. Sources have been added, thus proving this notion false.
  4. Non-Neutral Point Of View. Invalid criticism. At the time of nomination, the article contained 2 sentences (both of which are factual) and an unverified list of the team's record (hardly POV).
  5. Not noteable. I will assume good faith and say "not notable" was rewritten to add humour to the nomination.
  6. Limited (And poorly written) Content(And unlikely to be improved given the rarety of edits). The quality of the writing seemed OK to me (in any case, the nom's comment is not in line with WP:CIVIL). The average # of edits for WP articles is around 14 (including vandalism). The # of edits for this article prior to its nomination for deletion was exactly 14 (thus, average), not counting vandalism and the proposed deletion. -- Black Falcon 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. The article identified the team as a member of BCAFL and also had an infobox for further clarification. Insufficient context criticisms are applied to cases where the identity of the subject of the article cannot be adequately determined given the existing text.
  8. self promotion. Really? The article only identified the team as a member of BCAFL. There was nothing of the nature: "Best team in the world!", "A superior coach!", "Motivated players", and so on.
  9. Not Noteable. See my comment for the second "not notable".
Given that the only delete so far is the nom's own, I suggest speedy keep. -- Black Falcon 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to begrudgingly accept your verdict on most of the disputed matters for the sake of a civil discussion but you've still not addressed the primary concern, this team is not noteable according to wikipedia's rules on noteability. The only reference given is the team's own website not an external source. You say it is part of a noteable group and it gains noteability whenever the group is refered to, like a magazine might have the article: "The BCAFL, whose members include the Washington Tigers and the Surrey Stingers, will be sponsoring a team in the marathon to raise money for lukemia." That would be a trivial reference, nothing to do with the team itself. If you can prove that Surrey Stingers is noteable by it's own merits, rather than just because it's part of a group then I'll stop complaining and let it stay.
Comment I think it's pretty presumptuous to say that even though you're the only one who has a problem with the page, you get to decide whether to "let it stay". Sometimes people don't agree with you (in good faith). Tone like this does nothing to win support for your argument. Masonpatriot 15:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems to contradict the rules of wikipedia. Homer Simpson gets his own page but Apu's children do not get individual pages because they are not noteable, they are part of a combined page. Perhaps a few BCAFL pages should consider being merged into, say, Minor teams in the BCAFL?

I do aknowledge the comments about my tone, and I appreciate perhaps it should have been a little more civil. But so far the only three reasons given to keep it are:

So I'll say this one last time. I do not think the Surrey Stingers are noteable enough to warrant a page on wikipedia. Can anyone find proof that they are?Simondrake 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ok, here are some external sources that publish Stingers information (I have linked specific pages when possible:

So I will say this again: Why have you singled the Stingers out for this treatment? There are several other BCAFL teams that are even less notable than them but you have left their pages alone. The fact that you are a Surrey student makes this seem like a petty vendetta against the Stingers American Football team.Jskivington 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This debate is a mess, it's become more about my tone and calling me petty than it is about the page. The bottom line (And the top line, if you'll look at the topic instead of worrying about my tone) is that I do not think this team is noteable on its own. The fact that there are other pages out there that are less noteable is a topic for another day, this discussion is about Surrey Stingers.Simondrake 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, this line of inquiry could be considered relevant if there is a possiblity that you are approaching this discussion from a position of bad faith. Regardless, it seems like closing this issue is in order given the path and results of this discussion. Black Falcon seems to tie things up nicely. Masonpatriot 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, one last time. Despite my tone, faith or creed, despite me - Are Surrey Stinger Noteable?Simondrake 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you are the one that brought this issue and the article has existed without problem for well over a year, I would think that the burden is on YOU to prove non-notability. Plenty of points have been made above by MLA, Black Falcon and Jckivington to support notability. Are you saying that just because you want to disregard their arguments, you're right? All you've said is that the Stingers aren't notable, but haven't said why (except to dismiss what others say and post blanket links to wikipedia policy). I don't see this as unreasonable. Like I said above, though, this seems to be a dead issue at this point. -Masonpatriot 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their evidence of noteability is not valid according to wikipedias rules, which is what I said from the start. No one has provided evidence that is valid by wikipedias rules on non-trivial external references and the incredibility of forums. I'm just going to give up now because this is getting rediculous. It seems like a simple logical connection, this page is not noteable by wikipedias rules so it should be deleted unless noteability could be proved according to the rules.Simondrake 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on saying according to Wikipedia rules, but you are yet to note a single rule that this page does not conform to despite numerous requests, you keep on going "aginst the rules, against the rules!!". When someone stands up in court they are charged with an individual law violation not just "he broke the law". You also said "I do not think that this team is notable on it's own" which implies that your arguments are not based on any rules but a dislike for this individual page or team. This amuses me given the fact that you falsely claimed that this page is non-neutral, but that is a much better description of you.Jskivington 03:26, 5 March 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.
More