Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo Gladiators


 * 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   Keep Wisconsin Wolfpack, delete the rest.. Courcelles 05:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Buffalo Gladiators

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Semi-professional football team of questionable notability. Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORT, potential COI/POV issues, possible ADV issues, primary sources are league website or team website, and league page was deleted at Articles for deletion/Mid Continental Football League. It seems the league is using Wikipedia as a free webhosting server. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related in the same league and suffer from the same issues:
 * (also potential copyright issue with image)

Additionally, there is some discussion at WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion that may prove helpful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Paul McDonald (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for all Notable pages. I have already stated my case on why to keep semi pro pages, is no one listening to me? Rick lay95 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95
 * Actually, I have listened. You stated here that you're an active member of one of the semi-pro leagues; and here where you agree that the pages generally are not up to standards but should be kept anyway because the teams deserve the recognition.  I don't question that they deserve recognition-I question that they deserve recognition here in this encyclopedia.  Further, you do have a conflict of interest in editing many of the pages.  And finally, the pages do not have independent third-party reliable sources and are largely (if not sometimes entirely) dependent only on the league website, team page, or unreliable sources like message boards.  Many of the articles in the semi-pro world have no sources whatsoever.  I get what it's like to be emotionally attached to articles because I've done it--but we can't do that here.  We have to be as objective as possible.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. The article in question was significantly altered from my original version and would require a complete rewrite to be brought back into standards. However, I would disagree with the non-notable part. The Buffalo News and Olean Times Herald have covered this team extensively, and several other papers of teams who have also played them also have mentions. The team is notable, even moreso than most minor league teams, but this article isn't worth saving in its current incarnation. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Side comment. The previous comment refers to the Buffalo Gladiators article alone. I have no comment on the others. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as with the others. Lack of independent sources to indicate notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all Fail to show notability with outside sources. Reywas92 Talk 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wisconsin Wolfpack should not be removed The Wolfpack was also a Professional Indoor Football team in the CIFL, and a large part of the article is about this Indoor team. Because of this, I believe it should be left out of this discussion.  I can not comment on the rest of the topic, but I feel they should be left, or at a minimum the two different teams sharing the name Wisconsin Wolfpack should be separated into different articles. Micah008 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (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.