Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Lacrosse Conference


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Atlantic Lacrosse Conference

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth secondary sources which are independent of the source. The only source I found which comes even close to qualifying is []. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,  and West Virginia. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Collegiate athletic conferences are presumptively notable, IMO; we have countless articles on less noteworthy subjects.  The only reason for concluding that the subject is non-notable would be if it were a hoax, which does not seem to be the case.  The issue here is how to find good sources; but notability is not determined by the present state of sources, nor are sources required to be online.  The failure of someone's Google searches to uncover material on something that must certainly be documented merely shows that this search strategy is inadequate.  One or more editors will have to take the time to figure out where independent sources might be located, and consult them.  They may not be online, but there is no deadline for improving articles.  Given that we know this conference exists across a number of colleges in several states, and has for multiple years, concluding that there are no independent sources merely because one couldn't locate them online is inadequate to demonstrate a lack of notability  P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Comment: Collegiate athletic conferences conferences in the NCAA may generally be notable, but there is no criteria that says they are presumptively notable, and in this case this "conference" is in a club-level competition with little in the name of coverage due to the level of the competition. Just like your local travel baseball league isn't notable, this conference isn't either. Most of your vote reads like arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The absence of available sources should not, in my view, ever be twisted around to be seen as proof that sources actually exist. We can only use what is available, not what we imagine might exist in some fantasy world, and this article isn't up to snuff, simply enough. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet you're setting up a series of straw men. I didn't say that the absence of sources proves that they exist in some fantasy world.  Your claim is that sources don't exist because you couldn't find them online.  This is precisely the kind of subject that's likely to be documented primarily through college athletic sites and local news that isn't searchable online.  It's fairly certain that written or audiovisual confirmation of the conference and its history and membership exist; the only plausible explanation for it not existing would be if this were a hoax, which it's clearly not.  A relatively short search revealed that Davidson College's athletic site discusses its Lacrosse program, although some of the other colleges mentioned don't seem to.  But that speaks to the quality of their web sites, not the reality of their participation in the league.  If I haven't made this point clear yet, sources do not have to be available online.  The simple fact that it's a collegiate athletic conference means that sources will exist; a claim that they don't because you couldn't find them online is not credible.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, but we need independent, secondary sources. A member school discussing their program is a primary source. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:SOURCESEXIST are not legitimate keep arguments. Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You've got it backward. "None of these sources are good enough" and "I can't find any sources I consider acceptable" aren't legitimate delete arguments for something that we know exists and that should be notable.  You're still fixated on the lack of online sources, as though you hadn't read the guidelines that you keep wikilawyering with.  Sources do not have to be available online; articles don't get deleted because their sources aren't good enough; there's no time limit on improving articles.  The burden rests with the nominator to show that a topic cannot be documented, and that burden is not satisfied by arguing that there aren't enough online sources that are independent of the subject—particularly when it's obvious that better sources exist, even though they don't seem to be easy to come by over the internet.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course offline sources are just as good as online sources, yet it is nowhere near obvious that better sources exist. Let&#39;srun (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: To address @Let'srun's concerns for notability of a "club-level conference"; for most schools, the MCLA is the only available option for collegiate level lacrosse, especially for schools along the west coast. More schools participate in MCLA level lacrosse than NCAA DI and DII lacrosse. Yes, the Atlantic Lacrosse Conference is a young conference, so it has a shorter history and fewer online sources than others, but every other MCLA conference has met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. SammySpartan (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because other conferences have articles doesn't make this one notable. Also, did any of those other articles have AfD discussions? Let&#39;srun (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Suggestions to the contrary are based on false notions such as "of course it's notable," while they actually testify to the subject's evident lack of notability, e.g. "still a young league," etc. Maybe in a few years. I'd also suggest we all revisit WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.