Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/42ers Basketball Team


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

42ers Basketball Team

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails general notebillity guideline, no Google News hits for it, not even any local paper result for it. Clearly not notable for Wikipedia. Delete as nom. Thanks. Sk8er5000 (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I, after talking to my collegues on IRC, change my reccomendation to userfy, as the creator quite clearly has spent a lot of time and effort on this article here, and for all that to just go to waste is saddening. However, I just believe that it does not qualify to be in mainspace per WP:NOTE, and my original reasoning stands. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Left some comments on the talk page btw. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This non-professional team doesn't meet WP:ORG. The only media references in the article are to small-circulation local newspapers and local community TV and radio stations which don't seem to be anywhere the level or kind of coverage needed. Nick-D (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm coming up with hardly anything on Google for the team and the league. Might be some local church league for all we know. Vodello (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hilarious, but not encyclopedic. Clearly taking the piss. A purely social team playing in the local suburban competition. -- Mattinbgn talk 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe next time try some AGF first before mockingly dismissing a new editors' efforts?
 * The article in question has been deliberately written in a humorous manner by the editors. It is not a serious attempt at an article, more like a deliberate parody of a Wikipedia article. The "sources" are invented and the idea that any article that makes a claim that "Currently the 42ers are negotiating with Latrobe City for the naming rights of the new court, with 42ers Stadium and Fort 42 the preferred options at this stage" is laughable. I repeat, this article is a parody of a Wikipedia article, and a rather well done one at that. Your failure to understand that is mind-boggling. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel pity for you and your inability to appreciate the time and effort involved in creating this article, which from all i have read is clearly true. I am in a position to know of this proposal as the venue is my place of work, and for your information, i have seen correspondence of this proposal. What i find mind-boggling is that you see it more fit to waste your time guessing the relevance of this article, in which you clearly have no idea, and putting down those who seek to support it, rather than appreciate the time and effort that the editor has put into it and the high and truthful standard that it has set. Your offensive behaviour toward OlEnglish, not his unwavering support or the articles truthful claims, is the actual laughing stock.--Moegal4 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Moegal4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep else Userfy, as the creator obviously spent a lot of time and effort on this. This is on the same level of notability as someone writing an article on their highschool. Notability is definately asserted and one of the main references used "Moe and Narracan News", a local newspaper, does seem to exist. It's not that unusual that this team wouldn't show up on Google and I wouldn't use that as the sole factor in determining a subject's notability. It's a small local team which looks to be like a part of a legitimate league, plus it's not badly written. I've tagged it for maintenance for now. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Irrespective of the time and effort in creating the article, or the standard of writing, the subject is plainly a non-notable amateur sporting club, failing WP:GROUP. Murtoa (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the argument that references aren't notable enough really stands up. While these media outlets may be small, the fact remains that they are real references, and the team is notable enough to be included in these sources, which makes the references legitimate. If deletion went along the lines of the size of the reference, so many local football teams, and many other sporting teams, schools, public facilities in local areas etc would need to be deleted. If anything, this page has a much better argument of staying than any such pages. It's been carefully written with a neutral point of view, to try to ensure it doesn't get tagged for its neutrality as many pages of similar topics are (so many school and local football pages are clearly not neutral, and are noted so). It is comprehensively referenced to real, albeit small, media sources, and most definitively it has links to external pages that clearly prove its existence. The team is well developed, with a weekly published newsletter (accessed via email from its email address) as well as an online fan club. The team is real, the page is referenced to real sources and the article is equal to or greater in notability and neutrality to countless similar subjected pages that have not seemed to cause a problem--MBAReporter (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) — Bruce01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The verifiable references provided demonstrate that the team exists. Also, I concur that it is written from a neutral point of view.  And the article is mildly entertaining.  However, the issue of notability focuses attention on the local newspaper coverage.  My local paper also regularly covers the exploits of a handful of local sporting teams, but the regular coverage of these teams doesn't make them notable, because in most instances the match reports are provided by the teams themselves.  That's often the style of local community newspapers desperate for local content.  I'm assuming in good faith that all of the referenced mentions of the 42ers in the local paper are legitimate.  My problem is I can't consider it credible that a basketball team in the B grade of a local competition in a town with population less than 18,000 could be considered notable.  Murtoa (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentWhile I understand where you are coming from, I don't entirely agree. This article could be of notable interest to all of those people in the town plus many more in the local district. I probably agree that, on a global scale, the article may not be considerably notable, but this could be said of many thousands of articles on Wikipedia. I think notability can be very area dependent. An old railway line, schools, and even some towns may only be known to the people near the locality of these things, but it doesn't mean the article should be denied because it may not have been heard of or be notable enough for someone on the other side of the world. I think this is the same. A newspaper article should be taken with a bit of face value; it shouldn't matter about its size or distribution. Many of the thousands of people in the district and surrounds may read this paper, and the news it contains can mean just as much or more to the reader in that area as a different article from a much bigger newspaper halfway around the world means to that reader. A newspaper's size doesn't mean its articles are not notable to its area's people. Bruce01 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — Bruce01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." If as I suspect the content provided to the local Moe paper is actually provided by the team itself, or sources quite close to the team (possibly by the author of the article in question), then by the above definition I doubt such sources could be termed reliable.  This is not meant to dismiss the local Moe paper; more a strong suggestion that the reporting of lower-level basketball games is unlikely to be performed by a paid professional reporter, and the facts therein are unlikely to be checked and scrutinised.  As opposed to say local planning or crime stories on the front page. Murtoa (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on much the same grounds as Nick-D. Orderinchaos 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is ridiculous! If articles about an amateur basketball team or league is allowed, I might as well start creating articles for each of the hundreds of thousands ten-pin bowling amateur leagues across the United States. I'm seeing far too many inclusion arguments here, i.e. I see X and Y articles doing the same thing, so Z should also be allowed. If anything, this fails WP:NOT in that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a localized newspaper, nor should it serve as a web site for an entity that only serve a few thousand. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 10:07, 12 June 2009 (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.