Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal South


 * 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. I have no doubt this will be controversial, but I feel that the "Keep" opinions here are weak and not rooted in policy. For instance, one is a completely unsupported reference that the nomination statement is false. Another is a duplicate vote. The only one that would give me pause is the sources listed by User:Hmlarson. However, with one exception they don't appear to be "reliable sources", in the Wikipedia meaning of that term. The exception would be the ESPN source, but the extensive discussion makes it clear there is no consensus on whether to accept that as reliable (and it's out of scope for here, try WT:RS to argue over that specific example), and in any case one source isn't the multiple sources required by policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cal South

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This amateur youth and adult sports association doesn't have sufficient substantial and independent RS coverage about the association itself to meet our notability requirements. Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Nominator might also wish to consider similar articles listed at US Youth Soccer State Associations. GiantSnowman 12:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Five of such articles that GiantSnowman referred to have since been deleted via speedy delete; specifically. Illinois Youth Soccer Association, Missouri Youth Soccer Association, North Carolina Youth Soccer Association, Tennessee State Soccer Association, and Virginia Youth Soccer Association. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Cal South is not an amateur youth and adult sports association. It is the head competitive & recreational soccer organization in Southern California, and is associated with the United States Soccer Federation, which in turn is associated with FIFA. There are credible references which assure the notability of the article, and similar articles can be found here and here for other states. Reasons are continued on the talk page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly is an amateur youth and adult sports association. What is your basis for describing it as other?  Are you asserting it is not amateur? Not for youth and adults? Not a sports association? I think what you asserted is untrue. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Bowser2500 has been blocked for two weeks. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article needs expansion not deletion. Article content to be expanded to include more reliable secondary sources like ESPN, Top Drawer Soccer, Orange County Register, etc. per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ESPN source is a blog and Top Drawer Soccer does not appear to be a RS... GiantSnowman 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's your opinion from the UK? Hmlarson (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have I missed the memo disqualifying UK editors from commenting on whether refs are RSs? --Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that your interpretation? Ok - to each his/her own. Hmlarson (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no notability. I would also include Utah Youth Soccer Association and Maryland State Youth Soccer Association. =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maryland State Youth Soccer Association has now also been deleted, as suggested. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - while I still have deletion as my preferred outcome, another possible option would be to create List of United States Youth Soccer Associations (as a spin-off of United States Youth Soccer Association) and have all 52 listed there, with the (few) existing articles redirected/merged? GiantSnowman 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A list already exists on the United States Youth Soccer Association page. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 11:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence why I said it would be a spin-off. However, as I've said, my preferred outcome would still be to delete. GiantSnowman 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if the (few) individual articles are deleted do we not want to delete US Youth Soccer State Associations as well? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 11:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely, we should take it to WP:TFD once the AFDs are closed. GiantSnowman 11:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How about a redirect to United States Soccer Federation, with which it seems to be affiliated? --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree that all of these organizations are hard, if not impossible, to support with RS. Chris1834 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep some of the sources listed meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which ones? GiantSnowman 08:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * for one. The ESPN one was a bit short. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As already stated, Topdrawersoccer does not look to be a RS and ESPN is a blog. GiantSnowman 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Giant here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ESPN is the biggest sport media outlet on the planet. Their "blog" is hardly some acne-faced teen posting from their basement. There's nothing in WP:GNG that precludes ANY blogs specifically, let alone news articles posted to the "blog" of the biggest sports media outlet on the planet. What's the basis for saying that Topdrawersoccer does not look to be a RS? Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are there indicia of Topdrawersoccer being an RS? What is its staff? What is its editorial oversight? I understand that one guy -- "an avid soccer fan, coach and parent" -- created it. That's all. Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are ESPN blogs that different from Huffington Post blogs, which I have written for, or any similar site? GiantSnowman 11:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's different. ESPN is probably the largest sports media operation in the world, and it's only the sports arm of one of the biggest media empires in the world. Huffington Post is a small low-key website. It's like comparing the BBC Home Service to Radio Caroline. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nfitz -- you failed to respond ... Where are there indicia of Topdrawersoccer being an RS? What is its staff? What is its editorial oversight? One guy -- "an avid soccer fan, coach and parent" -- created it. What editorial oversight and staff does it have? I see no evidence of any. So why do you view it as an RS, and a basis for your !vote? Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually Huffington Post is not a "small low-key website" - it is actually the top 'popular political website' in the world according to this. Try again. GiantSnowman 17:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do confess that I'm surprised at how fast it's grown for something that's not been around that long. Though looking into it more, I'd think that would probably speak to Huffington potentially being a reliable source, despite being a blog.  Still, at only about 800 employees it's a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation, about 1/10 the size of ESPN alone, let alone the 175,000 employees of the entire Walt Disney Company. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nfitz -- you again failed to respond to me ... Does your silence mean you have no defense for your !vote relying on Topdrawersoccer as an RS? Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it simply means that I hadn't noticed your comments, as they got lost behind GiantSnowman's comments. Your looking for indicia. Referring to WP:GNG in what way does that article not meet WP:GNG. The writer is well known, professional, and has been around for a while; the article is detailed, has significant coverage, addresses the topic directly and in detail. The details of the article are verifable. The writer is independent of the subject. Not sure what you think the issue here is. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that this parent has a self-published website, and he has been "around for a while", and he is well known to you, does not make his self-published source an RS. Nor does detail and direct coverage by this parent make his work an RS.  There is no editorial coverage oversight as far as what I can see -- this is a standard self-published non-RS. Please look at the definition of RSs to understand what I am saying. Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep highlighting parent? How is that relevant? Is this some kind of WP:BIAS? How do you even know that Daniel Robertson is a parent, because I'm not seeing any information on that. You seem to be trying to downplay the writer's credentials. He's a professional sports writer ... I doubt this was a professional piece, but that's hardly the case when you look at other material. Self-published?  This isn't his website. Why do you say there is no editorial oversight?  The website would suggest otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because that is how the publication describes itself. "Robert Ziegler, an avid soccer fan, coach and parent, began taking an academic interest in our broken pre-professional soccer system." No mention of editorial oversight or staff whatsoever. A key aspect of an RS is that it have that. Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * didn't write the article though ... I've made no references to him. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So we agree. The ref is a non-RS. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The size of the company is irrelevant - you can have a RS that is 1 person, or a company of 5 people; just as a company of thousands can be non-RS (i.e. Daily Mail) - Nfitz you are not actually dealing with the issues we are raising namely that this organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. GiantSnowman 17:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet you dismiss sources, not based on their merits, but simply because they are a 'blog'. I'm not discussing this organization in terms of ESPN ... I already dismissed that source for other reasons - I'm simply pointing out that your dismissal of ESPN, simply because it's a blog, while not entirely relevant to this debate, denotes that you fail to fully comprehend WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am dismissing it as a source per WP:SPS. GiantSnowman 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can eliminate the entire content of http://espn.go.com/espn/blogs as a source per WP:SPS. Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking reliable independent sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above; there are enough credible sources that discuss the organization to some extent.--Bowser2500 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, sources discussing the organization "to some extent" is not sufficient under wp notability rules; and here, the sources that are independent fail to provide "significant coverage". Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2014 (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.