Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Jose Golddiggers


 * 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. There seems to be adequate sources, though the article could still use improvement I don't think this is a case for deletion. henrik • talk  19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

San Jose Golddiggers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable sports team. Possible hoax. Fails WP:RS. NO sources given at all. Google and google news turn up nothing on this.
 * Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL I mean keep.   The New York Times saw fit to provide coverage on the team.  I'm seeing lots of other news links as well via Google.  This begs the question... what Google are you using..? :)  JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please adhere to the civility standards.Undead Warrior (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Get a grip. Nary an uncivil word has been written.  Next time Google harder if you're going to claim you really searched on Google, okay buddy?  If you can't handle reasonable discourse I suggest you walk away now, while you still have a chance.  :;-)  JBsupreme (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to realize that sarcasm is being uncivil. Your above post is uncivil. The post you just did was uncivil. Keep personal sarcastic comments to yourself. It is not needed on wikipedia. AfD is not the place for comments like yours. Undead Warrior (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * HOLD ON !!! This is a legitimate wikipedia article. The San Jose Golddiggers WERE a real professional women's volleyball team in Major League Volleyball from 1987-1989.I have included a legitimate reference source for the team, the 1989 San Jose Golddiggers Team Media Guide. There is no reason to delete this article, as I have given a legitimate reference source. The league was televised by ESPN, so it MUST have existed. I have VHS game tapes of televised matches, programs, volleyballs and literally hundreds of game action pictures from all three Golddiggers seasons. If I need to further corroborate this information I can do so easily. Just because Google doesn't pull up any info isn't a surprise,try using the following links that Google obviously missed :









Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/San_Jose_Golddiggers" --Bill swanson (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing another wiki page is not a reliable source. Neither is a geocities page. The google searches come up with thousands of returns, but that is because the term Golddigger is a widely used term to phrase something that is not related to sports. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick point The NY times article doesn't even talk about the Golddiggers. It talks about the New York team that beat them. The article still fails WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I can understand nominator's skepticism about whether a women's sports team would be called the "golddiggers", but that was indeed their name.  I recall the team, and MLV, from the 1980s, and the team did get coverage, as the cites by Swanson demonstrate.  Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See also | Sports Illustrated, May 25, 1987 article entitled "Women's volleyball goes for the (pro) Gold" Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources added to page I have added links to websites, whether Geocities or not, including Sports Illustrated, the New York Times, major universities, etc. While I admit Geocities sites are not considered as legitimate, come on, we aren't all imagining the team.

Reference material on a league that played from 1987-1989 is hard to come by on a search engine like Google. The internet was almost non-existent back then, so adding the information is dependent on average people like me. The job hasn't been done very well, but there is a preponderance of proof, whether or not Undead warrior wants to accept it. The San Jose Mercury-News web archive has over 100 individual articles on the team, so obviously they were of some importance in the local sports scene. I think I've given significant proof, but I'm willing to add more. Please stop the deletion of this article, which I might add, I didn't start. One person seems to be having difficulty accepting my resources, but I am trying to add more, as time allows. One persons seemingly narrow view isn't reason to delete something on wikipedia. --Bill swanson (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a warning. Stop making those subtle attacks against me in your statements. AfD is not the place for it, nor is Wikipedia. Also, just because the internet was new or did not exist during an event, does not mean that the internet has no information over that event. Look at Pearl Harbor. It was before the internet, but many sources contain information over it today. You can also site things that are not on the internet. From now on, leave your attack comments to yourself. Also, this is not a guarenteed deletion. AFD is a process. If the overall consensus is to keep, then the article is kept. Please read WP:AFD. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While we're handing out free advice, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. Its pretty obvious, to me at least, that Bill swanson is a new user who is acting completely in good faith while being understandable frustrated by typical Wikipedia processes.  What's your excuse?  JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is no case of biting. Any user, newcomer or not, cannot make attacks in statements. If he's frustrated, he should say so, not take it to attacking other users. That is common sense, not just a wikipedia rule. He has a thing on his talk page that points to the "rules" of wikipedia, so don't say he wasn't outside of this. I know he's new, but that is no excuse to attacking other users in AfD, or personal talk pages. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, lighten up! You started the disagreement, Undead warrior, All I did was add to an article. No disrespect intended, but you've not been the nicest person about this either. I just responded in kind. It wasn't my intention to annoy anyone. I may not use this service as regularly as many others, but I understand the rules. Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.--Bill swanson (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a disagreement. It's not a personal statement to another editor. It is a way of letting the community decide whether or not an article is worthy or not. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification In reference to my comment about a disagreement, I was referring to the info I was offering as proof of the teams legitimacy. I wasn't referring to the AfD directly, just the reliability of the sources, sorry for any confusion with that comment. --Bill swanson (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the good things that came from the nomination is that sources were added to the article. Awhile back, another editor expressed an opinion that I thought was interesting, which is that AfD can be a "no lose" prospect-- a nominated article that can be improved is improved, and one that cannot be improved is an article with no merit is removed.  Kudos to both Undead Warrior and to Bill Swanson in calling attention to and fixing the lack-of-sources problem.  Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (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.