Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season


 * 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 delete. Lots of evidence was supplied of the notability of teams playing in this league, along with a few pieces of evidence of notability of the United Premier Soccer League. But none of those pages was being discussed here. This discussion is about the 2018 UPSL season, and there was no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources of the 2018 UPSL season. The "keep" !votes outnumbered the "delete" !votes by 7:2, but WP:NOTVOTE ... and in this case, the "delete" !voters offered a reason much better-founded in policy and evidence, viz. that WP:GNG is not satisfied wrt the 2018 UPSL season. Assertions by advocates of keep about the notability of teams are not relevant, per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Overturned to Keep per review at WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 UPSL season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep: There are pages for the seasons of similar level leagues like 2017 PDL season, 2018 NPSL season, and 2017 Premier League of America season. There is independent media coverage of the league as well, although the article itself could be improved by referencing this coverage.Bashum104 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This league is regularly covered in local and national media. Here are a few recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Bashum104 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The only one of those I would consider a reliable source is Soccer America (EDIT: rescinding this since it isn't the main point that I am trying to demonstrate and appears to wrongly be the source of most of the criticism for my arguments), and none of those sources cover the league's season in its entirety. Jay eyem (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What would be a reliable news source to you? These are just the first ones that came up when I Googled the league. What would be an example of a source covering a “league’s season in its entirety”? Bashum104 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The latter is the more important point, and it is the burden of those arguing to keep the article to provide the source under WP:BURDEN Jay eyem (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No I mean can you give an example from ANY sports league of the sort of coverage you’re requesting? I’m not sure what you’re asking for. Bashum104 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, searchable topic. Opposing arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You really should attempt to demonstrate notability rather than just accuse people of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jay eyem (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep additional reliable sources added, namely from the Omaha World-Herald and the San Francisco Gate Santaniego (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment those may be useful for establishing notability for the teams themselves, but they are not useful for establishing notability of the article at hand, namely the 2018 season for this amateur league. Jay eyem (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously the coverage for the 2018 season is going to be a bit sparse at this point, given that the season hasn't started or even announced its schedule yet. Nevertheless there is already some coverage of the upcoming season. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3. These are in addition to the ones I posted up thread. Bashum104 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm able to find pages of sources for the teams in the league:, ,  to just pile on.  A league with local teams is going to have local coverage by local papers.  WP:RS  There is a lot of it. Trackinfo (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment that latter source from the Vox site is more what I'm talking about since it discusses the league (although not the entire league season). I really don't see how any of the other sources listed aren't violations of WP:ROUTINE, though. Jay eyem (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * violations of WP:ROUTINE? First of all, there is no such thing as a "violation," it is YOUR interpretation and categorization of the content in order to achieve the goal of eliminating this league.  Local newspapers do what they do, cover the local sports teams.  They talk about the upcoming season and what happened previously.  If you want to say that is routine, then wipe out all the articles for the NFL and ever other sports league because all coverage is routine by that standard.  Obviously a ridiculous overreaction. Trackinfo (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment you seriously think comparing a league like NFL to this is a fair comparison? NFL gets way beyond routine coverage, as do other leagues like the Premier League, the Bundesliga, Serie A, etc. So far it remains to be seen whether or not this league can do the same, because it hasn't been demonstrated so far. From WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Can you explain to me which part of that I am reading wrong? Jay eyem (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What you are reading wrong is the genericized "sports" within that sentence. You are taking too broad an interpretation.  If you demote all sports coverage to routine, then you negate the sourcing to ALL of our sports articles.  Routine would be a player's total accomplishments being limited to a single mention buried in the agate.  That is a huge difference to a full news report that talks about the local team's entire (upcoming) season in a league, repeated in multiple newspapers for each team in that league.  An accumulation of multiple sources that shows each team is notable, the league is notable and the season is notable.  And that is what multiple editors are demonstrating with naming all these sources.Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment No, I am not negating the sourcing on all other sports articles. Having JUST routine coverage is not sufficient and there needs to be more than an accumulation of sources demonstrating routine coverage for individual teams. There needs to be a more in-depth article from a reliable source about the season itself that goes beyond routine coverage. This has not yet been provided. And just because each team might be notable in its own right does NOT imply that their seasons are notable under WP:INHERIT. Jay eyem (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked about this upthread and now I'll ask again. Can you give an example from ANY sports league of a source you would feel would demonstrate the notability of a sports season? I really just do not understand what it is you are asking us to produce. Bashum104 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete Too many references are self interested parties and do not meet the requirements of editorial oversite and control as discussed in WP:RS. Information can be summarized on main UPSL page until (and if) the league gets enough traction to justify separate articles for each season - the US soccer pages are littered with partially complete seasons for leagues that had big dreams but lived a short life and now need to be deleted summarized and cleaned up. Let's do this one right. Keep relevant info on main page and break that info out into a separate pages once the league demonstrates staying power and there will be more Wikipedia s to help do the work and keep the information up to date. Additionally, it appears to me that Too many of the edits on UPSL are by Wikipedians that seem to have either a financial or ownership interest in the league or one of its teams - creating additional neutrality problems that will be difficult for disinterested Wikipedians to monitor Trödel  15:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Spelling it out: The sources mentioned here as self-interested and unreliable include:  Lincoln Journal Star, Burleson Star (a local newspaper in Burleson, Texas), WCAV,  The Dallas Morning News, KVIA-TV, WDBJ and Nevada Appeal.  Please explain the self interest and unreliable nature of local newspapers and TV stations. Trackinfo (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t speak for anyone else, but as the person who created the page and made the majority of the edits, I can assure you that I have no financial interest in the league or any of its teams whatsoever. Bashum104 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And for clarity, I have no dog in this fight either. I only write about soccer when it associates to my main subject of track and field.  However, I have seen this kind of unfair railroad job attacking content in the past.  I do understand WP:RS and local journalism.  There are other folks who have created a lot of this content and they need help playing defense.Trackinfo (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep, with the understanding that going forward, references must come from a wider variety of sources, and not mainly from upslsoccer.com. I replaced one of these references with a source from the Omaha World-Herald, for example. Santaniego (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous reliable sources per above. Not sure how anyone could claim otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It does have reliable sources and we have multiple similar articles for other leagues in the US. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment While I would like to avoid bludgeoning the process, I feel like the recent arguments being made in favor of keep are not addressing the issue at hand. There needs to be significant, detailed, and beyond-routine coverage of this specific UPSL season that is in question from a reliable source. This has not yet been provided. Similar issues were raised during a recent AfD about a college soccer tournament, and although the analogy is not perfect, some of the arguments still apply. The result of that discussion was to redirect to a different page, in this case it could be to the United Premier Soccer League page itself. There is already a table for the champions of the league by season and the information for this season could easily be included there at the end of the season. Jay eyem (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep requesting coverage that is "detailed and beyond routine." Much coverage has been provided that I feel meets that bar. However, you continually deny that this coverage meets your standards. Twice already in this thread I have asked you to provide example(s) of articles that would be beyond routine coverage for seasons of other notable sports league. You have ignored me both times. This example would be helpful because it would allow us to compare this coverage to the coverage the 2018 UPSL season is receiving. If you provided these examples, we would either 1) be able to find coverage of the UPSL season that meets your standards or 2) be able to determine that no such equivalent coverage of this season exists. Bashum104 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment and I already directed you to WP:BURDEN. It's your responsibility to find these sources, not mine. Jay eyem (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I think I misread your comment. The main issue with most of the sources is that they are just routine coverage announcing that a team will be participating in the following UPSL season. It doesn't indicate that the season itself may be notable. The team may be notable (most appear not to be), and the league may be notable, but that does not mean that the season is notable. You need an article that provides in-depth coverage of the season itself. I encourage you to read some of the comments on the AfD I referred to. I also encourage you to userfy the article should it become notable at some point in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no examples in that debate of "non-routine" coverage for seasons of other leagues, which is what I've repeatedly asked you to provide. There is certainly more and better coverage of the 2018 UPSL season than there is of the 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament. Bashum104 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok well then I will re-redirect you to WP:BURDEN and remind you that it is your responsibility to provide these sources, not me. And note, the result in that AfD was a redirect i.e. the article was not kept. I also encourage you to read WP:BADGER. Jay eyem (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the one claiming that every source produced here is inadequate. Yet you refuse to produce even a single example of a source that would be adequate? You've set a standard so high that it would be impossible to meet it. I'm not asking you to provide a source for THIS article. I'm asking you to provide a source for ANY article. Is the 2018 USL season notable? How about the 2018 NPSL season? Heck, is even the 2017-18 Premier League notable? Show me an article about one of these leagues that you feel demonstrates notability - that isn't, as you call it, "routine coverage." Show me an article that covers one of those leagues that goes above and beyond the sources we've given in covering this league. Bashum104 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note to all those !voting 'keep'; the presence of sources does not equate to notability, and neither does the existence of other similar articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I have yet to see a meaniningful 'keep' !vote, everything is simply coming across as WP:ILIKEIT. GiantSnowman 15:11, 9 February 2018 (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.