Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Solent Thrashers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'll firstly establish that the previous AfD nomination for this page included it as part of a bulk nomination, and the Keep decision was made solely because each page merited individual attention.

Having given this page individual attention, and quite aside from the extremely non-encyclopedic tone and content it consists of (almost none of which is referenced), various reasons for deletion occur to me:


 * As detailed in the previous AfD nomination, it does not meet any specific notability guidelines for sports organisations laid out in WP:NSPORTS - it has had no nationally or internationally notable members/employees and has participated in no nationally or internationally notable events or activities.


 * WP:AUD - according to Wikipedian standards "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" and at least one "national, or international source" is necessary - having searched google, google news, google scholar and google books I cannot find any national or international interest or sources, only local media and media of limited interest.


 * WP:ORGDEPTH - even though there are these local news references and references on specialist, enthusiast websites, almost all of this coverage is Trivial according to Wikipedia's standards - specifically:
 * sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
 * inclusion in lists of similar organizations
 * the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
 * routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
 * brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
 * routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
 * quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
 * passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * D


 * Delete. The reasons given above are pretty iron-clad - I've done all the searching for media coverage I can and have had the same findings - local-press, trivial, non-notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrontDeskMust (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. have googled: no national/interational notability, no non-trivial coverage. also (and incidentally) its written like a personal website and has had years to address issues. MarlovianPlough (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete --- All points raised so far (which, as far as I can, I've corroborated) would individually be enough reason to delete, but taken as a group they're overwhelming. Personofi (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable amateur "American football" club team based in southern England. User:WalkingOnTheB nails this in his AfD nomination above, so there's no need for me to rehash the "delete" reasons in great detail, except to say that the subject fails to satisfy the specific notability guideline for teams and organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, both for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 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.