Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greystones Mariners


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Greystones Mariners

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is a claim of significance in the article, but no sources have been provided and I have not been able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing to establish notability. GB fan 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

More external references and sources have been added. I believe the page has as much credibility as other wikipedia entries of Irish baseball teams such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Spartans and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Hurricanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefarrel (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Lefarrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but it was only a complimentary argument to the fact that the website has a legitimite claim to exist. There are now external third party sources.Lefarrel (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Ordinary amateur club with no notability. The club claims to be "the oldest baseball club in Ireland", having been founded in 1991, but that is not very significant. There seems to be no coverage at all in substantial independent sources: the only apparently third party coverage I have been able to find is parochial local coverage, and even that looks like write-ups of press releases and announcements by the club. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was told my argument about other baseball team's wikipedia entries existing is invalid, however you are now trying to delete them. But why then, can you explain, do you stop at just the teams I mention and not follow through for all the amateur baseball teams in Ireland? I feel that this action is simply to pacify me. I refute the idea that the page has not enough notability. I believe the difficulty in qualifying the notability of this page is due to the imprecise definition of notability.Lefarrel (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Lefarrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This page should be allowed to exist, There are now several external sources of information and references, including a nationally (and internationally) sold dvd. How is it one could create a page based solely on a fictional character you and a friend created yet a legitimate sports club cant have a page? K8connor (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — K8connor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You ask "why then, can you explain, do you stop at just the teams I mention and not follow through for all the amateur baseball teams in Ireland?" The answer to that is that I don't know where they all are. There are well over three million articles on English Wikipedia, and nobody can possibly be aware of every single article that does not satisfy our inclusion criteria and should therefore be deleted. If you would like to mention some other similar articles then I will look at them and consider whether or not they should be proposed for deletion, just as I have done with the ones you have already mentioned. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - If there are articles on Wikipedia that are about fictional characters that aren't discussed by reliable sources they need to be deleted and if you can point me to them I will nominate them for deletion. Those articles have absolutely nothing to do with this article and the fate of it.  We need to look at this article and the sources available to determine if it meets the notability guidelines set out by the Wikipedia community.  I have gone back through the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion and still feel the article does not meet the notability guidelines.  There are currently 4 sources listed as references, 2 of them look like press releases announcing the start of a season.  The 3rd source is a site about a video that might discuss the team within the video, but I can not find anything on the website itself that discusses the team. The 4th one states that the Mariners were the Little League champion in 2011.  None of these rise to the level of significant coverage of the team. The 4 external links don't help either, the official club website, the Baseball Ireland website, another announcement about the start of a season and a social networking site.  I still do not see anything that establishes notability as defined by Wikipedia.  Please see Notability.  GB fan 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In the emerald diamond film some of which is on youtube the club is mentioned and is seen putting up a backstop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CreiZOXLjt8&feature=relmfu The club is also mentioned in this second video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBqf3G_bkBc&feature=relmfu at 1 min 41 secs.BiafraNoir (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)BiafraNoir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes the Mariners are seen in both videos, but they are not discussed in either one. These videos are about baseball in Ireland not about the Mariners.  These do not help establish notability of the cub.  GB fan 19:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, YouTube is not a reliable source, as anyone at all can make a video and post it there. I could post a video of my left foot to YouTube if I wanted to, but that would not make my foot notable enough to be the subject of an article in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole idea of notability seems completely relative; you may not find this page noteworthy yet every baseball fan in Ireland would find it a useful source of information, not mentioning any increased publicity it would gather from Irish-American baseballers. BiafraNoir (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Your response seems wholly negative, how do you recommend we supply you with the required notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiafraNoir (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — BiafraNoir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I appear wholly negative. Notability is not relative.  It is all dependent upon reliable sources  If reliable sources have noticed something and have given significant coverage of it, then it is notable here on Wikipedia.  So what can you provide to show that the Mariners are notable? sources.  The sources though need to meet three criteria.  First the sources must be reliable, this means that the source is know to fact check their information.  Next the reference needs to provide significant coverage of the Mariners.  It can't be just a mention in a bigger article.  Finally the source needs to be independent of the Mariners.  In other words it can't be something provided by the Mariners, like an announcement that they are going to start practice.   I am always open to changing my view if information comes out.  GB fan 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that BiafraNoir refers to "any increased publicity it would gather from Irish-American baseballers", and I suspect that that is really the essential point: the article is intended to gain publicity for the club. However, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or advertising, and the fact that the article stands to serve that purpose is certainly not a reason for keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It was never my intention to make this page a medium for promotion or advertising. You assume too much. Why are you making secondary arguments anyway? Do you feel that the notability argument is weak like I do? I cannot help but feel that the application of this strict interpetation of the notability rule is disproportionate with respect to the rest of wikipedia. These guidlines are the ideal case. If a page doesn't meet these guidlines it shouldn't just be deleted. Stating that the article needs more sources is appropriate. The club is Ireland's premier baseball club, and although that doesn't seem important to you that is your opinion and not shared by the creators of the page. I also notice that you have now deleted one other amatuer baseball club page but have left the other. Obviously your strict requirements are not shared by other editors. Maybe you need to readdress your understanding of what wikipedia is about.Lefarrel (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Lefarrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I can' speak for other editors, I don't change my interpretation of the notability guidelines from one article to the next. No one can go through all 3,764,099 articles on Wikipedia and try to apply the guidelines evenly.  I try to apply the guidelines evenly across the articles I come across.  This one I came across while reviewing Candidates for Speedy Deletion where I declined the request to speedily delete the article.  The notability guidelines are not the ideal case, they are the minimum case.  You say that the Mariners are Ireland's premier baseball club, that is important.  The problem is that nowhere in the article does it say that. Just adding that though would not be enough, we would also need a reliable source that says that so it can be verified.  One article was deleted because the Proposed Deletion tag was left in place for 7 days.  The other one someone removed the tag without addressing the concerns.  So I nominated it for deletion using this process, because I don't see how it meets the notability guidelines.  All we need to save this article from deletion is significant coverage in reliable sources.  GB fan 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the first piece of constructive advice. Will it be sufficient to provide a legal document proving that the club was established in 1991? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefarrel (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that isn't sufficient either. We need sources that are not associated with the Mariners.  A legal document establishing the Mariners had to have been filed by the Mariners, that would not make it independent.  Are there any books, newspaper articles that discuss the Mariners?  Not like the ones currently in the article that just announce when the seasons start.  The guidelines are looking for outside sources to notice Mariners.  I hope that better explains what is required.  GB fan 20:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. Sources identified are either not WP:INDEPENDENT or are WP:ROUTINE coverage e.g. inviting people of all ages and akill to come out on opening day and sign.  Without more significant coverage from independent sources, there is not much that can be written to make a substantial neutral article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG, sources need to be WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2011 (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.