Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfort Rangers


 * 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. The last comment casts doubt on the "keep" opinions.  Sandstein  20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Westfort Rangers

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

Violation of notability requirements.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete not notable. -- neon white talk 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hey, at least it doesn't claim notability. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:N., .  The multiple part is vaguely questionable.  It might not be something we want, but the letter of notability (the only reason given for deletion) appears to be met... Merging the various team in the league into one page is probably the best in reality, but that's an editorial call.  Hobit (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those is about as trivial as it comes. --Smashvilletalk 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the above, independent verification of notability seems to exist. Wily D  10:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – Peewee teams are notable when they are mentioned in the local newspaper? For those unfamiliar with hockey, peewee is for players aged 11–12. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When there are articles from multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the topic, then yes, by definition it's notable. IAR is a real option here.  But to answer your question, yes those three articles meet the letter of GNG quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in learning how declaring every little league baseball team, every peewee, atom and tyke hockey team, every youth league basketball team, etc. notable improves the quality of this encyclopedia. Resolute 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely...if these are declared notable...then what isn't notable? --Smashvilletalk 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Twas Now. This is a children's community team.  Never mind the fact that this is basically a speedy deletion candidate for not even attempting to assert notability. Resolute 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seriously? It's a kids hockey team...Little League baseball teams are not notable and peewee hockey teams are not notable. Given the nature of such teams, they probably won't even exist once the season is over...Having results printed in the local paper is not evidence of notability. Lots of local papers in small towns print stories about rec league teams...--Smashvilletalk 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Per notability guidelines, this is presumed notable.   The above !votes are largely cases of IDONTLIKEIT or "Not notable" !votes and should be largely discounted by the closer. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: One could just as readily discount yours for being completely vague as to what notability guidelines this team meets and why? For my part, I'll stand by WP:ORG's guidelines, which hold that "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."  For pity's sake, are you genuinely advocating that a twelve year old youth hockey team is notable because the local paper has a weekly article about the peewee leagues, and every now and then this crew's number comes up?    RGTraynor  13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first part of WP:ORG reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Your point about audience target is well made, but I will point out that our most recent survey indicated that people felt that you don't need to meet both the GNG and the SNG.  I don't see anything in the GNG about local sources.  As I mentioned above, I've no problems with merging this article into an article on the league or even something larger.  But as far as I can tell, this meets the letter and intent of the GNG.  As far as what part of the guidelines this meets, the articles establish significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.  I think my argument is pretty plain and not a case of "ILIKEIT" or "plainly notable".  Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The sources given are passing mentions for results in local papers. Smashvilletalk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at a table of results indicating the only statement that met consensus was "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability." I see no attempt to revoke WP:ORG, never mind a consensus to do so.    RGTraynor  17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And failed was "Articles must meet the GNG and SNGs" Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point being? Only one of the myriad statements there obtained consensus.  So far black-letter policy or guideline has not budged a jot.    RGTraynor  18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a pretty clear case where common sense should be used. Instead of throwing around blue links, just use your head: little league sports teams are not notable. This team isn't even a top tier peewee team (which still wouldn't be notable)...it's a team in the second tier of a 3 tier system in a league in a town of a 100,000 people. --Smashvilletalk 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point if we were trying to meet the dictionary definition of notable (famous etc.). But that's NOT what notable means here. "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (from WP:N).  We live on sources.  IAR is of course an option here.  But if you want notability to have to do with "fame," "importance," or "popularity,"  you should take it up at WP:N, not here. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not notable. It does not meet notability guidelines. You have provided no evidence of notability other than passing mentions on results pages of a local paper. Those are not "significant coverage". The fact that the team exists does not make it notable. It is a rec league team for 11-12 year olds...it's not even the highest division. Quoting the guideline doesn't make it notable. You haven't shown how it actually meets WP:ORG. --Smashvilletalk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Number one, I claim that the GNG is all that needs to be met. As linked to above, that seems to have consensus. Number two, calling these passing mentions is a pretty rough argument as two of the articles are largely about the team and one is significantly about the team.  Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article at this point doesn't even meet A7...how can it possibly meet WP:ORG? --Smashvilletalk 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can't believe we are having this much debate and discussion over an article that's entire content consists of: "The Westfort Rangers are a Thunder Bay-based hockey team." --Smashvilletalk 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, we are debating if the topic meets the requirements for inclusion, not the article. I understand your frustration, I often come at it from the other end.  People argue that some major topic doesn't warrant an article because of a lack of RS (even if there are 100 (litterally) primary sources on the topic and was on the NYT bestseller list) and that it is RS, not "fame" we are looking for.  But that isn't want we've chosen to do (and I largely think rightly).  Rather, if multiple independent sources cover it, we cover it.  If they don't, we don't.  WP:ORG has good arguments that the sources aren't enough, but this idea of "local sources" only exists there as far as I can tell.  Not in the GNG or any other SNG...  Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What sources? --Smashvilletalk 18:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll be done here at this point. Let me summarize my arguments.  I believe that there are 3 non-trivial, reliable, independent sources on the topic.  I believe that it thus meets GNG, though WP:ORG might not be met as "local" sources are considered less relevant under its guidance.  I believe that meeting the GNG, but not the SNG is still a reason for inclusion per the survey presented in the WP:N talk page and general consensus about notability.  And I think arguments about it being "just" a 11-12 year old league aren't relevant per the GNG's comments on fame, importance and popularity.  Arguments that the sources are trivial are of course on-point, though I don't see how that can be true when the article is long and mainly about the team in question (in 2 of the 3 cases). I also think IAR might be a valid plan here, but if we are going to claim that stuff like this is generally not notable (and not just this case) then someone should go back to the GNG and address the idea of "local" or whatever reason they have for thinking that this kind of topic doesn't belong here.  Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, how can it meet notability guidlines when it doesn't even meet A7? Also, the team is the subject of zero of the three articles provided. The article has one sentence - "The Westfort Rangers are a Thunder Bay-based hockey team." - and none of the sources are even able to support that. Were they a team at one point? Yes...Are they a team now? What kind of team are they? One article refers to their results as the results of a peewee team, but another says the kids are 6-7... --Smashvilletalk 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't believe there is this much discussion about something with so much common sense. See Articles for deletion/Coniston Flames for a similar situation. This is absolutely rediculous. Completely non-notable. – Nurmsook!  talk...  16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just looked again...the so-called "sources" refer to three separate teams...the first refers to a 6-7 year old team, the second to a peewee (11-12 year old) team and the third is an atom (9-10 year old) team. --Smashvilletalk 16:40, 28 October 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.