Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoCal Coyotes


 * 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. Secret account 05:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

SoCal Coyotes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 29.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 Article contains largely promotional text about a minor league/semi-pro football team. Long list of references is composed of localized RS and first-party sources and other non-RS. No significant coverage in WP:RS outside the Palm Springs area, even in other parts of Southern California. Las Vegas RS is more about Mouse Davis personally than about the team. Koumz (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is established WP:GNG by widespread, reliable notable coverage WP:SIGCOV in Las Vegas Review Journal, including Page One photo, referenced SoCal Coyotes in another state as early as 2012, verifiable evidence WP:NRV that Mouse Davis was involved in the foundation of the organization. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability is established WP:GNG via multiple examples of verifiable WP:NRV third-party, independent, widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from the Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment.The article and subject meets applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG via significant national and international following and significant weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. List of references includes multiple third-party RS. Team is recognized by third-party sources as a developmental program, and is not a semi-pro team.  Numerous players and coaches in article have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League and other top-level professional leagues, meeting notable criterion as defined in WP:NGRIDIRON. There is also significant interest in players of notability arising from their college football days WP:NGRIDIRON. Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Organization notability must be determined in its own right and cannot be inherited from the notability of players associated with it. If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The organization is notable in its own right as a developmental minor-league sports team, which makes relevant its association and advancement of players and coaches to and from prominent leagues and colleges defined in WP:NGRIDIRON, as well as the significant interest in players of notability arising from college WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, that is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The applicable notability guideline for sports teams is not WP:NSPORTS, but WP:ORG, which includes all types or organizations, including corporations and other types of businesses as well as sports teams.  At its core, the WP:ORG standard is very similar to the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, in that it requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of a team or other organization.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The article and subject meets general notability guidlines WP:GNG and applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG in that it has significant national and international coverage WP:SIGCOV and receives verifiable WP:NRV weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources . Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment That is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bleacher Report articles are written by the team's coach, David Miller. Not exactly an independent source.  Nothing on the Football Educator website suggests that it is anything other than Ted Sundquist's personal website, however knowledgeable about football he may be.Koumz(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Bleacher Report remains significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from a reliable Time-Warner-owned respected and notable national news source WP:GNG, Wiki-worthy and used as a verifiable source WP:NRV by numerous WP articles. Its published stories must meet strict factual editing and content guidelines. The Football Educator is significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from the corporate site of Ted Sundquist, a notable and Wiki-worthy national football authority, and an independent, third-party, peer-review source WP:NRV. The fact that NFL scouts alerted the Denver-based Sundquist (outside of Palm Springs or Southern California) WP:SIGCOV to the Coyote developmental program speaks to the national interest in the team. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. The Coyotes have no other connection to Sundquist or his organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Response If Bleacher Report really does have "strict guidelines", why did it allow Coach Miller to report on himself (speaking in the third person as if he were an independent reporter rather than in the first person as would be correct if he were openly giving his opinion and claiming it as his opinion)? This is an obvious conflict of interest and violates one of the most fundamental principles of journalism, and the tone of Coach Miller's articles clearly promotes himself and all others mentioned in them.  The Football Educator article also notes that Coyotes GM Sam Maggio was involved in editing the article, which call into question the independence of that article.  Koumz (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Response The Coyotes (according to website point-of-contact Maggio) were asked to fact-check team statistics and provide supporting white paper documentation to Sundquist's staff upon request -- Coyote curriculum, for instance, that they use in public schools. Bottom line, the Bleacher Report article contained enough noteworthy documentation to meet editorial criteria. Let's stay on point here: The facts remain that a developmental football leadership organization used all of its professional resources to mature an obscure  quarterback and earn him a shot with a tier-one Arena Football team, which culminated with the three-time world champion San Jose Sabercats signing him to a professional contract. Subjective issues with 'tone' and criteria and guidelines of the editors of Bleacher Report should be addressed to their editorial board. 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bleacher Report citation removed and replaced with a third-party reliable source.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment The article has been reformatted to make it fit a neutral encyclopedic tone. To date, article continues to be developed and improved, but should not be deleted. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The language of the article is still not fully neutral. Your statement that it is calls into question your understanding of neutral tone. Koumz (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editing continues to improve the page, and any page that improves should not be deleted. The article continues to be developed and improved. It meets notability guidelines WP:GNG with verifiable sources WP:NRV of independent coverage WP:SIGCOV. Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Has existed for months, and while it contains numerous citations, almost all of them are not to reliable sources, and especially not independent reliable sources - their own website makes up about half the cites, with other cites being non-reliable sources like YouTube, Ebay, Amazon, ZoomInfo, Facebook, ect. I'm not seeing evidence of widespread coverage in reliable sources, here, or even very many reliable sources at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article, which has been previously edited and improved by WP administrators, establishes notability with widespread significant coverage WP:SIGCOV of verifiable WP:NRV reliable sources WP:GNG that are two-thirds of those cited. These include significant national publications WP:SIGCOV that demonstrate the coach is not only a published author who has worked, and co-authored mainstream books, with top-tier NFL and NCAA professional coaches, but also utilizes their knowledge and relationships in the growth of the Coyote organization and the development of its players. Verifiable independent sources WP:NRV include ISBN titles of the actual books, their notable national publishers, which include MacMillan Publishers, Skyhorse Publishing, Bess Press, and the role of co-authors -- June Jones, Mouse Davis, Jerry Glanville -- within the Coyote organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources added to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV ongoing widespread coverage from mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC and KESQ-ABC as another example of notability WP:GNG. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a notable non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations WP:SIGCOV in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players with the Coyotes, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes WP:SIGCOV coverage includes verifiable evidence WP:NRV of reliable notable print sources such as WP:SIGCOV the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, reliable mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and reliable NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added WP:GNG additional independent, reliable, notable widespread coverage sources WP:SIGCOV such as Honolulu Star Advertiser, and Hawaii 24/7 to demonstrate verifiable evidence of coverage WP:NRV of current players (kicker Dan Kelly) and role of team contributors and published works (Jones-Miller).Gagliardi89 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Successfully de-orphaned with links to other pages. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional verifiable objective edvidence WP:NRV with WP:GNG third-party widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from Procanes.com, a reliable, independent source for news about University of Miami athletes. Procanes.com reported on the Coyote organization and signing of former Hurricane.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Procanes.com, which may or may not be a reliable source, did not report on anything, it simply reposted an article from the Taft Midway Driller newspaper of Taft, California. The Midway Driller article WAS WRITTEN BY THE SoCal Coyotes (as noted on the Midway Driller website)! User:Gagliardi89's statement that this is independently-generated material about the Coyotes, regardless of who republishes it, is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.  This is the second time this user has claimed articles generated by the Coyotes or their coach, J. David Miller, to be independent when they are not.  User:Gagliardi89's ability to judge the independence of content SOURCES (not just wherever they might happen to be published or reposted, but who actually WROTE them) is clearly in question.  Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Procanes.com citation removed, and replaced with additional third-party reliable sources of significant coverage.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Numerous reliable sources and significant coverage WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated outside Palm Springs area, across Southern California, to Florida, to Nevada, to Hawaii, to Australia, and addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is not a trivial mention. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies, published books and mainstream television news networks, which meets verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources encompass published works in all forms and media. There is also demonstration of secondary sources covering the subject, another good test for notability. There are numerous sources independent of the subject. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Gagliardi89 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See above about this user's understanding of independence of sources. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Independent, widespread, notable, reliable, verifiable widespread coverage is current to October 14, 2014, with continued coverage on the Coyotes from NBC affiliate KMIR. Article continues to rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)



 Keep  -- Article meets notability guidelines with verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources. The evidence shows the topic has gained significant independent coverage and recognition since 2012. Sources of evidence include recognized publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ and CBS-NBC Sports Radio affiliate KXPS Team 1010. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in independent sources makes deletion due to lack of notability inappropriate. Article continues to improve, has eliminated questionable sources and now pursuant to WP:GNG relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Struck Gagliard89's second "keep" !vote; you only get to !vote once in any given AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 
 * Comment - Rarely, if ever, have I seen an AfD that was a bigger mess than this one. The author (and sole substantive discussion participant) has created a nearly impenetrable wall of repetitive commentary above, and has done his article, this AfD, and other editors a disservice by doing so.  It's a mess, and it's apparent from the lack of commentary that everyone, including all of the regular participants in American football-related AfD discussions, is shying away from this AfD because of the required effort to wade through the volume of accumulated material.  Rather than relist this article again in a week, I am going to request that editors who are regular members of WP:CFB and WP:NFL focus on this AfD and come to a decision based on WP:ORG and WP:GNG.  Perhaps we can find some way to divvy up the necessary homework to make a sensible recommendation to keep it or delete it, but this has gone on long enough.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pare article to an appropriate length and reassess deletion. To my eyes a large part of the problem is that any actual notability that the subject team may possess is completely overwhelmed by the relentless promotional tone and inclusion of even the most obscure details in the team's history.  Probably the article can be reduced to three or four main points - 1) successful team; 2) "spiritual as well as physical growth"; 3) lots of historical connections to Mouse Davis and - well, maybe only three things.  The point is that the team may, in fact, be notable for a couple of things, but it's almost impossible to see through the cruft and clutter to appreciate what that might be.  The article as it stands is a mess.  If it were a taut, clean article saying what the team is, and why it's notable, with maybe a few sentences about its greatest successes (or worst failures, I dunno) - I think its chances of surviving the AfD would be a lot better.  I've taken a few sharp stabs at reducing the article to manageable size and invite other editors to do the same, so that the AfD can go forward with the real issues clear to all.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, regardless of issues with the article or the actions of the article's author, subject receives plenty of significant coverage for tertiary sources, however all the sources appear to be local to the region where the subject is active in. While it can be argued that this meets WP:GNG, there are more stringent criteria that the subject falls under WP:NGRIDIRON & WP:ORG. When looking at this, the subject does not appear to pass WP:AUD; therefore, failing that more stringent guideline, I cannot support keeping this article until that is found published by a non-local source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. On its face, it appears that the subject of the article may have enough reliable sources to attest to its notability under the GNG (as local as most of them may be; this is complicated by the fact that they have never shown themselves to be able to even hold a steady long-term relationship with any league, so opposing cities' news sources aren't available). However, the tone of the article is far too grossly promotional, and the author's work reeks of that of someone with a conflict of interest (whether or not the user actually has one is another question altogether). If a user believes they can take on the gargantuan task of totally rewriting this article, neutralizing its tone, and paring out the promotional content and dubious claims about its stature in the professional football scene, then they should transfer the article to userspace so that the sources can be preserved. Otherwise, this article reads like borderline spam. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: The particular issue I see here is the use of "peacock terms;" namely, the persistent and pervasive insistence on referring to the team as "AAA." That is a dubious analogy, since professional football does not have the same pyramid structure that is present in minor league baseball or hockey. The Coyotes are not affiliated with the NFL or any other verifiably professional league, nor are any other members of the various leagues in which it has played. If it is truly "AAA," by any standard, then what constitutes the "AA" league or team? The "A" league or team? Lastly, how does the Coyotes prove convincingly that it truly ranks higher than any such team that would be "AA" or "A?" (Perhaps it's simply sponsored by the American Automobile Association—I kid.) The sources mentioned in the article do nothing to support the "AAA" description. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources have been listed within the article. Any issues such as a conflict of interest can be fixed by other editors (assuming the editor has one). Its not borderline spam though. All the claims, however much POV exists, are still referenced. Sure POV can be toned down, but that doesn't warrant deleting the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Biblio worm  01:14, 24 October 2014 (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.