This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
The addition of the notability tag was reverted with the summary that "there is not a notability issue" but the lack of significant coverage in independent sources in the article very clearly show otherwise. Most of the sources are trivial mentions (at best) of this team. This is just a series of quotes from Buckley and so isn't independent coverage and this is about a coach and the coverage of this article's subject is trivial. Sources don't support this article and the tag was added to make editors aware of that, but if notability isn't going to be improved/demonstrated and this is the best the article can offer then it needs to be brought to AfD, because this doesn't cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the name of the article, everything about the Guardians themselves is a quote from the coach and thus not independent, and even that is trivial. Everything else is about the coaches themsevles.
Local WP:CHURN. Everything relevant is a quote from the coach, thus not independent. Take away the quotes and everything remaining is about the XFL teams as awhole and only passing mention that one will be in Orlando.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The team's already played a season of pro football in the XFL, will be playing a second (so will receive even more coverage for sure) and has received plenty of coverage already for it: [1][2][3] (and lots more from that website) [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (just for when they were in New York York) [15][16][17] (the past three were just made yesterday!) [18][19][20] and [21], and I'm sure I missed a lot. This is clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a more specific notability guideline, WP:NTEAM says WP:GNG is the relevant guideline, so "already played a season of pro football" doesn't matter, the sources do. As for those sources, that's a lackluster list: this is trivial coverage, this could not possibly be more trivial, this is a fan site with no editorial oversight, and that's just the first three that were described as "plenty of coverage already". This is "plenty of coverage"? That's worrying, and looks like you just copy-pasted anything that matched the article's name rather than curated a list of worthwhile sources. This article was and remains unready for mainspace, and cobbling together a shoddy list doesn't change that. Rather than throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, what's the WP:THREE sources for this article? The "past three made yesterday" are schedules, explicitly a type of trivial coverage. This article may be many things, but at this point "clearly notable" is in no way one of them. - Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my opinion that this is clearly notable. You may nominate it at AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and examined each of the 20 references you provided:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
...and only one of them was even marginally usable as far as notability is concerned. You say it's "clearly notable" but it's not clearly anything of the sort. Clear would be well-established with sources, and this doesn't meet even that very basic standard. With this list and what I found online it would be lucky to limp past WP:GNG with one or two more sources, but those are lacking at this time so it's not "clearly" notable, it's not even "arguably" notable, as with the sources so far mentioned and what I was able to find it fails WP:GNG; that's not clear notability. If this is the best of the best as far as sourcing is concerned, I think it warrants a discussion at AfD. Do you have two more sources so that WP:THREE is met? I don't think that's an unreasonable ask; if it's so clearly notable that should be an easy thing to provide. - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to change each other's opinion. Just take it to AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about the XFL and makes no mention of this team.