Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idaho Horsemen


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Idaho Horsemen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Proposed local sports team. Middling routine coverage insufficient to meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jack Frost (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS for their single source coverage of their announcement. As they do not even have a league (and the owner has been making various social media posts for over a year), too WP:NOTCRYSTAL to presume any notability. I actually thought this was PROD worthy under those circumstances. Yosemiter (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep! Here is more proof they are going to get started. You don't need a crystal ball. It has gotten coverage. No single coverage here. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the same press release from a different local media source,both from their Jan 30, 2018, announcement. Thus, still fails WP:SUSTAINED as it only has the single moment of press (WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Yosemiter (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And you wonder why many people believe that Wikipedia is "NOT a credible source of information". If "single sources" are not enough proof, then why have Wikipedia?  NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not about proof, it is about notability and verifiabilty, of which the general notability guideline is rather straightforward: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Note the plural use of "sources". Further explained in the GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In this case the only source is the initial announcement, that has been reprinted twice on the same day for the same purpose. Per WP:NOTNEWS#2: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Hence why merely announcing intentions to local media, and receiving no further coverage, is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Yosemiter], fair enough. Yet, to others, all of the guidelines are "excuses to delete".  NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I appreciate the enthusiasm of the article creator! The notability standards cited above just have not been met at this time, at least not nearly enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia.  Perhaps try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2018 (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.