Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego Derby Dolls


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

San Diego Derby Dolls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page should be deleted. It's a small organization which exists in isolation. It's primary membership does not exceed two-dozen people, and the organization appears to have no permanence to speak of. I put forward that it is the equivalent of a local band or podcast. I know of several bands and podcasts which have larger audiences (in the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands), but do not qualify for inclusion. An organization with a following smaller than those unqualified examples, cannot claim to be qualified for inclusion.

California State fictitious name filings (also known as doing-business-as or "DBA") and LLC Incorporation records show a transient existence. The California State Board of Equalization shows that sellers permits and other filings made by or for this organization are not in good standing. Meaning that if it is still operating, it is not complying fully with the law. This indicates that the organization is not mature enough, or is so small that it cannot properly file it's paperwork.

It derives its authority by citing a larger "league," the membership of which is comprised, in large part, of only itself. It's the majority body of the body that granted it legitimacy.

The references are not industry trade publications. In many cases they are magazines with no physical distribution, or ad supported print publications freely distributed in an attempt to increase ad circulation. One reference is from an LBGT magazine ("San Diego Gay and Lesbian News"), which is not a respectable authority in this case. Another source appears to be the San Diego Union-Tribune, a local print publication. However, a closer inspection shows that the article cited was an online-only review, in the Arts & Entertainment section, of an independent movie, which was made by the Derby Dolls, for the Derby Dolls. The article is similar to a native ad, and was published in a section equivalent to the New York Time's "blogger" section (that is to say, with less credibility than the opinion or editorial sections). In any case, an article about an independent movie, who's author does not hold the Derby Dolls up as an authority on the sport, can not count as a respectable authority on Roller Derby or sports.

The remaining online sources can not automatically count as relevant to this discussion either. They should be at best considered neutral. Many of them are broken, or from the same author, or the same publication. Many of the publications cannot be held up as relevant or credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2015

—

The San Diego Derby Dolls are a significantly well known entity in roller derby both on the banked and flat track with over 6700 subscribers to their YouTube training page and references in several print trade magazines such as Five on Five, Blood and Thunder, and Lead Jammer Magazine. These statements of fact counter the statements made in the request for deletion.Amy &#34;Bitches Bruze&#34; Moore (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd declined the speedy because of the sources. They're not slam bang great, but the thing about speedies is that the article only has to give a vague assertion of notability and having coverage from a major newspaper would accomplish this, as did the film. The other sites aren't great, but one could argue that they sort of assert notability as well. However that wasn't really what I was looking at when I declined the speedy - it was almost solely this source that I based that decision on. This doesn't guarantee that either are enough in and of themselves to assert overall notability, but the threshold for passing speedy criteria is insanely low. If there's a good chance that something could be overturned at DRV then it's always better to take it to AfD where it can get a more official consensus, as this would be less time consuming whether it may seem like it or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I let WIR know about this since it falls under their banner and they don't (to my knowledge) have a deletion sorting list like the sports WP does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I see that Sailing californium is Forum Shopping in their vendetta against this organization; funny how they have been an editor on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours and have made two attempts now at getting this article deleted, and no edits unrelated to the subject. The nom's suspicious editing patterns aside, the article could use some improvements and additions - as opposed to the absolute whitewashing the nom proposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoedmyron (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 December 2015‎
 * While it's true that this is my first action as an editor, you cannot discriminate based on that. If everyone's first action was immediately rejected purely because it was their first, nobody would ever have a second. Sailing_californium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding YouTube: Wikipedia's published guidelines do not seem to indicate that YouTube subscriber counts may be cited to bolster notoriety. They seem to suggest social media should be disregarded. If no supporting guidelines can be found, the YouTube subscriber count will have to be disregarded for the purposes of this conversation.Sailing_californium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding vested interests: Although difficult to handle or parse, it's important to recognize that some participants in this conversation have already identified themselves as participants in the league which forms the subject of this article. Valid supporting arguments from these participants should not be disregarded, but passionate pleas, emotional defenses, or unsupported votes in favor of inclusion, must not be accepted. Of course the people who gain notoriety, legitimacy, or some form of "fame" from this page, would enthusiastically support it's inclusion in Wikipedia, as doing so lends legitimacy to their organization, and themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By that do you mean that they're a member of the SDDD or that they're fans (or participate in) roller derby as a whole? If they're part of the team then that would pose a COI, but if they just participate in or follow roller derby as a whole, then that wouldn't really pose a COI. One can participate on other teams but still be able to neutrally participate with an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, where exactly do you think "some participants in this conversation have already identified themselves as participants in the league which forms the subject of this article"? I, for one, live in Canada, and have never been to San Diego in my life, for example. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's my rundown of the sources. I have no firm opinion on notability at this point in time.


 * 1) KPBS. This is a PBS station. These stations are held to a pretty strict editorial standard, so it would be considered a RS. The article goes into some depth about the group and was written by a staff reporter. Now the big thing about it is that it's local, though.
 * 2) San Diego Union Tribune. This is a major newspaper and the coverage is quite lengthy. It'd be considered a RS, however like the PBS it's local so that does put a bit of a damper on things. However since this is a major paper that does give it some weight that a smaller paper would not. Whether this is Internet only is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to major news outlets.
 * 3) North Coast Journal. This one is a little brief and one that I think I added to the article, mostly to serve as a basic trivial source.
 * 4) San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. This one is iffy. It was written by a staff reporter, which is good, but it'd be something I'd run through RS/N first. Now what is interesting about it is that this asserts that the SDDD is a national champion. If they won a major tournament on the national level then that would be enough by itself to establish notability. I'm not hugely familiar with NSPORT, but I do know that winning major, national championships is almost always enough to pass GNG. Now it just depends on which one they won, since I'm sure that there are many.
 * 5) SDUT. This one is insanely brief, to where I'd really only consider it to be a trivial source.
 * 6) Derby News Network. This is a dead link. They had a staff, so that counts in its favor, but I'd still have to run this through RS/N since they did take contributions from random people. That's not always a deal breaker, but it can be sometimes depending on how much editing they do and how well known they are as a RS to other places. Offhand it's probably not usable for Wikipedia's purposes, though.
 * 7) RD Coalition of Leagues. This is a primary source so it can't really show notability. Being the founding members of a major coalition can make it more likely that the group will be covered, but it's not a guarantee.


 * Now the problem here is that pretty much the only guaranteed usable coverage is local, which doesn't really help an awful lot. I do see where they're mentioned quite a bit in various places, but it's usually trivial. Now a viable option here would be to merge this into the founder's article. I think that there could probably be enough notability to firmly show notability for Bonnie and the SDDD, so that's always something to take into consideration. Still, I'll try looking for more and I'll stop in to ask the sports WikiProject if they know about the roller derby tournaments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 
 * FWIW, I've fixed the DNN link; they updated their main URL at some point without a redirect. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The San Diego Union-Tribune is a major newspaper, and its article is not a movie review, but about the team itself. (Whip It is also not "an independent movie, which was made by the Derby Dolls, for the Derby Dolls". It had a budget of $15 million and AFAIK, was not about or particularly inspired by the Derby Dolls anyway, just a fictional women's roller derby team, so that has no real bearing on this discussion.) There are a fair number of less reliable/second tier sources (here's another), just enough to push it over the notability bar IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - as discussed above, there are a variety of decent sources on the league already in the article; the San Diego Union-Tribune one demonstrates some notability, and the other ensure that the information is verifiable. There may well be some other good sources; I'll have hunt around. Warofdreams talk 11:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article's reliable sources are independent, with a sufficiently broad audience and depth of coverage for this to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The San Diego Derby Dolls were just featured on the nationally-broadcast CNN program Somebody's Gotta Do It in October. Aside from the significant coverage in the Union Tribune and KPBS sources, there are additional sources not currently used in the article such as the Texas Law Review. gobonobo  + c 18:55, 9 December 2015 (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.