Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Fighting Fillies


 * 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 redirect to Women's Football Alliance. Seems like an appropriate compromise given the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Portland Fighting Fillies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Tagged for notability since 2009, it appears the team was covered in the Portland newspaper only once (the source in the article) and apart from a couple very short mentions in other newspapers (mostly Fresno) and one local television news spot, I don't think they're notable. One of the newspaper blurbs said the league was amateur. A merge into the league article might be proper. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Seems to lack notability as it only cites one source. A merge may be more appropriate as described by nomination. bop34 • talk • contribs 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Women's Football Alliance: Anything worth merging can be done after the redirect. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  00:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily. There are plenty of good sources, easily meets the WP:GNG. They're just not in the article. Here's a story by the local ABC channel, and here is one by the local CBS channel. Those're videos, which are a pain to transcribe but are acceptable. This URL doesn't work but can be dug up in the Wayback Machine probably, it's an article in The Skanner (a local weekly) about their opening day. Here is a short 2019 article in The Oregonian, Portand's main paper. And I can see there's more, altho I haven't checked if there're any more sources reliable and notable enough. But this alone is enough to ref and probably expand the article. It's just a matter of doing it. Can't do it if the article is deleted.


 * Also... the first of the Five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" which starts off "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias..." and here's a book called "The Women's Football Encyclopedia: 2016 Edition" which is just that, a specialized encyclopedia. It's a "comprehensive history" so it most probably has some useful material on the Fillies. Herostratus (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Google book search you posted brought up no results. The Skanner article was not archived. A Newspapers.com search brings up nothing. We have one general interest article on the team, two general interest local television news stories on the team, and one article we can't access of questionable utility, and some mere mentions from newspapers in other cities. That's not enough for a keep, you can't write a good encyclopaedic article with those sources alone, and you'd also expect a notable sports team to have significant coverage over time, especially if the team is an amateur one. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Enh? Here's the Amazon link for "The Women's Football Encyclopedia: 2016 Edition". Pretty sure the book exists. I don't know if it has any useful info on the Fillies, but based on the book description there I'd be surprised it it didn't.


 * OK, for the other, it depends on one's definition of "a good encyclopaedic article". People's personal opinion of that vary widely, and maybe you're stricter than me. We can agree to disagree, but the WP:GNG is something to look at. It's not a hard rule, but it's a good quick exercise in gauging if an article's worth it. So, GNG says you want "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:". Sources means at least two, and we have that. CBS and ABC local TV stories and The Oregonian and so on are probably generally reliable for most stuff, we use stuff like that. They're also notable and independent, not some fanzine or whatever. As to "significant coverage", the GNG leaves that to us, only telling that a passing mention in part of a single sentence is not significant coverage, and an entire book is. There's an awfully broad range in between, so you've got to kind of take it as "you guys figure it out".


 * So, for my part, I've always taken "significant coverage" to mean "enough material from at least two articles (or equivalent) to make a decent article rather than just a stub", which "decent article" is like a couple good meaty paragraphs say. We have lots of articles that are only that long, and so it's a de facto standard I guess. So I guess I'm not an outlier. The article right now is only two sentences (not counting the tables), but it looks like there's enough there to expand it to ten sentences or so, which is plenty. But that can't happen if it's deleted.


 * And another way I like to look at it is just to ask: "For readers searching for this term, instead of taking them to this article we should send them to a 404, and that will enhance their experience because ___________. What goes in the blank?" Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , "Because they realize we cover only notable topics"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Well, I wanted to learn about the Portland Fighting Fillies, but there's nothing there. Well but I found out something more useful. I learned that the Wikipedia doesn't consider them notable! I'm much happier now having learned that than anything I could have learned about them in an article." Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an article tagged with notability concerns for a decade for a team playing in an amateur league. I can't access one of the two sources you mentioned, but the KATU video has the team on the set, so it's less independent than you'd think. They're just an amateur sports club which has received only a very little secondary coverage. A redirect, possibly per Coolabahapple, wouldn't be improper here. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean... the overarching vibe I get here is basically "I've already decided I don't like this article, so why are you bothering me with facts?" Who cares what you personally can or can't access? I can. Who cares if you don't like that they are amateurs? I don't. So what if KATU brought the team on set? It is common to conduct interviews on set. It doesn't make the the interview worthless. Is KATU biased in favor of the team, because they're on set? What statements of fact in that source, specifically, do you question, because they were made on set?


 * As a general rule, when someone demonstrates -- As I did -- that an article meets the GNG, an appropriate response might be "Oh, in that case, I change my stance" rather than "So what? I still don't want people to be able to read this stuff." Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think you've demonstrated that it meets GNG - the KATU looks like routine and non/independent coverage, and even assuming the benefit of the doubt on the other local news broadcast, they just haven't been discussed substantively in the media. My amateurism comment only reflects the difficulty around non-professional sports teams: my old amateur sports club would get mentioned in the paper with relative frequency, but an article on them would almost certainly get deleted on WP:NORG grounds, since none of it is really all that independent from the team. This article has a similar problem. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oof. I did not realize that they had merged into the Portland Shockwave. That is different. There's no reason that the material of this article can't be merged into that one. Since there isn't much material now (there could be a bit more, but there isn't), a Redirect would be in order. A separate section in that article could be added if anyone wants. And the Portland Shockwave has tons of articles and stuff. So mea culpa for not getting this basic fact.


 * But just as a matter of interest, I literally don't understand what you are on about teams and news sources not being independent of each other. If the newspaper (or TV station) owns the team, or something like that, then that'd be a problem. But that's not the case here is it? Or you saying "local team, local paper, everybody's uncle knows somebody's cousin, they're too intertwined" or something? Or are you saying that local TV papers and stations aren't notable enough to be sources (that's way different from not being independent of each other isn't it)? Or actually what??? Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Seems to fail WP:NORG. The cited encyclopedia may contain a passing mention, nobody here seems to have verified that it contains WP:SIGCOV, so we default to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES (as in, we don't assume they actually exist or contain SIGCOV unless we have reasonable evidence to the contrary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Portland Shockwave, not enough out there for a standalone wikiarticle (they appear to have only been around for a short time) but as this Tribune article mentions "She played four seasons with the Portland Fighting Fillies before that team merged with the Shockwave." a sentence in the Shockwave's history section may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2021 (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.