Talk:Orlando Guardians

Notability concern
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)


 * 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:   (and lots more from that website)            (just for when they were in New York York)    (the past three were just made yesterday!)    and, and I'm sure I missed a lot. This is clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I went through and examined each of the 20 references you provided:


 * ...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)
 * We're not going to change each other's opinion. Just take it to AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)