Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seaboard Football League

[edit]
Seaboard Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football league, fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. League was either semi-pro or minor league, both of which fail WP:NSPORTS. No independent reliable sources provided (only enthusiast websites or trivial coverage), fails WP:RS. Paul McDonald (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of interest, where does it state in WP:NSPORTS that semi-pro/minor leagues are not notable........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer WP:NSPORTS is not designed to say what is not notable, but to say what actually is notable. Listing what is not notable is impractical, cumbersome, and not necessary. Neither semi-pro nor minor league football is even mentioned in the guideline. Further, the guideline gives a few specific league examples and also states "any other top-level professional league" -- This is not a top-level professional league. Of course, a league could still pass through the general notability guideline but I don't believe that is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an example of taking something out of context rather than actually arguing policy. The context of the sentence that's being cited-- "any other top-level professional league" -- is "American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." You can't just take the last five words of a sentence and argue that it means something more. Let me explain this as clearly as possible. WP:NSPORTS applies to the notability of individual players in minor and semi-pro leagues. It has nothing to do with the leagues themselves, so that's not a reason for deletion. It's not even a ban on players, merely a statement that they are not considered automatically notable, but that's another story. I recognize that this existed before most Wikipedia users were born, but this was a minor league (not a semi-pro league) in the early 1970s, and was, by Wikipedia standards, more notable than most in terms of the coverage by the press [1] and its inclusion in the book cited in the article. It was the successor to the Atlantic Coast Football League, and, like ACFL teams, it wasn't unusual for NFL training camps to have exhibitions (involving the rookies) against Seaboard League teams "Packer Excels at Quarterback As Jets Top L.I. Chiefs, 29-3", from the New York Times, July 30, 1972. Even with the having existed before the Internet era, the league was notable by Wikipedia standards. Mandsford 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Fair enough. The article definitely is in need of improvement, and doesn't really demonstrate the significance of the league. I have the Gill, Brainerd and Maher book to refer to for a little more detail. Mandsford 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review of "improvements" I've got some serious questions about these improvements and comments that need to be addressed:

  1. Of the articles I can read online, they all seem to be about an individual rather than about the league. For the offline references, do these suffer the same shortfall or are they truly about the league?
  2. The Miami News article clearly states that one of the teams in the league is a "semi-pro" team and not a minor league team. Which is it, or was it both? Please explain.
  3. The Miami News article further is about one player Joe Klecko and clearly not about the league, which is only mentioned in passing.
  4. What is mentioned about the team was that he had to lie about his name and background just to play. His teammates drank and wore plaster casts (i.e. cheated: players would sometimes do that to use the cast as a weapon to knock out their opponents).
  5. The Reading Eagle article is clearly about "King" Corcoran, a player who barely squeaks by the notability standards: he was a backup QB at Maryland but did manage to play in two games for the Boston Patriots (forerunner to New England Patriots of the NFL). The article covers how he thinks so highly of himself that he boasts, "My name makes the Seaboard League a bona fide minor league." The article does say it is a minor league, but the article is primarily about Corcoran--pointing out that "some of his best times occurred in the pro ranks. The King roomed with Joe Namath..." Seriously, the best thing this guy ever did was room with Joe Namath?
  6. The Hartford franchise joined the league on May 31, 1972 but quit the league by November 23, 1972--less than six months later.

CONCLUSION the sportswriters of the day, the players of the day, and the team managers of the day did not see the league as notable. Why should we?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question on minor vs. semi-pro, every indication is that the league was clearly professional between 1971 and 1972. You could make a case for it being a semi-pro league in 1973, especially without Klecko being paid, but at the very least it was pro for a majority of its time in existence.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, for my more important issue: considering I think your "conclusion" is complete bunk and spinning for an excuse to make yet another deletion in a campaign to scrub anything that even mentions the phrase "semi-pro," what would it take for you to accept this league is notable? We've presented over a half-dozen news articles expressly describing this league and its actions and you're still not happy. That's more than a lot of the professional leagues on here. What more could you possibly want? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. I don't mind making improvements to an article, and I didn't do it to make Paul McDonald happy. You know, Wikipedia has room for many interests. I hate to play the "other crap exists" card, but you really can't demand more from others than what you are willing to deliver in your own work. I see that Paul has an interest in contributing articles about football at Westfield State College, not sure where that is, but the fact that I've never heard of it doesn't mean that I have a need to tear down the biographies he have contributed about its various coaches. When I look at the sourcing and the claims of notability in those articles 1, 2 and 3, I'm surprised at the criticisms he's leveled in his other nominations. Between the misunderstanding of the WP:NSPORTS policy, the history of nominating team, and then league articles; the determination to eliminate, rather than to move information; and the insistence of different rules for others than for oneself, I see this as disruptive and not at all constructive. While all of us should continue to strive for improving Wikipedia, it's not a battleground here. Ultimately, it works out better if you treat others as you would like to be treated. Mandsford 03:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it would take for me--just a couple of verifiable independent reliable sources about the league. That's all. What has been provided (that I can verify) are about players in the league, and that just isn't the same thing. Barry Sanders played in a kid's league in Wichita. Barry Sanders is notable, but that doesn't make the kid's league notable. If the league is notable, this shouldn't be much of a trick for anyone. Oh, and can you answer my questions about the offline sources that I don't have access to? Are they about the league or players/coaches in the league? --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just not true. At least two of the articles expressly discuss the league itself. The rest are used to support them. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Which two articles?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On WP:NSPORTS clearly yes this is a guideline about individuals. However, it also shows that there is a direction and a level at which notability is and is not achieved. While it certainly is not policy, it can also be used to show that there is a line somewhere that notability is achieved. NSPORTS is "inclusive" and not "exclusive" meaning that the subject matter can achieve notability through other means (WP:GNG for one) but I have not seen where this subject has achieved that or any other notability mark.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Westfield State coaches normally college football head coaches are considered notable and this has been upheld with very few exceptions in many AFD discussions. As a comparison, normally semi-pro/minor leagues are not considered notable and this has been upheld with very few exceptions in AFD discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even at the level of Division III? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. You can check Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coach Navboxes/NCAA Division III the navbox list. Of course, reliable sources still have to be found and that hasn't been done for every program and even then not every coach "makes the cut" but yeah.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a navigation box or a project doesn't have anything to do with a policy on notability. What a project means is that there are people who are people who are interested in a particular aspect of the game of football. That's all. For the most part, the people in that project feel free to write, without the concern that an intolerant person will decide that Wikipedia must be purged of biographies of small college coaches. No offense, but it's been obvious throughout this discussion that you don't yet have an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. The concept of notability is simply whether something merits an article of its own, and, if not, whether there are other existing articles within Wikipedia where the subject can be referred to. On the other hand, I think that your perception is that anything that is not notable in your opinion should be purged from Wikipedia, which is unfortunate. If you're proceeding under the idea that your own work is protected by an inherent notability policy, or that you're exempt from the same expectations you demand of others, I'm afraid you'll find out that Division III college football coaches do not have their own free pass under WP:NSPORT or any other policy. The nominations won't come from me-- I'm a firm believer that Wikipedia should not be a battleground-- and a backlash may come against the work of others rather than your own, but I won't be surprised. Mandsford 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than argue, let me just ask: what does any of that have to do with this article? Say for a moment that you are 100% correct and I'm a moron. Fine. You're still left with needing to find some verifiable independent reliable sources for this article. Are there any?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the laugh Seriously, gang! I'm busting my lungs laughin' at the Pittsburg Post-Gazzette article! The player was paid $50 a game and they had to get him a job as an insurance salesman! The reporter calls it "a professional career whose beginnigns were such that he would've had to look up to see the top of a ditch." You don't need me to argue for deletion of this article, your own stuff does the trick for me! I needed a laugh!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this debate is almost over. As with other aspects of policy, you might have your own definition of verifiable, independent and reliable sources, but we go by WP:V here. Mandsford 13:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing from this discussion is that the verifiable, independent and reliable sources actually are supposed to be about the subject matter in the article. For example, the aforementioned Post-Gazzette article on the page is indedeed verifiable, independent, and reliable. It just doesn't cover the subject matter--except to use it as a point of how non-notable the subject actually is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Observer-Reporter article, which expressly describes the league's organization? Or the AP wire story that describes the league as it was in 1972 when Hartford departed it? That's two reliable, independent sources on the topic right there. The Post-Gazette article even makes a mention as to it being "well-remembered." Certainly, if it was well-remembered, it was notable enough to BE remembered. If it hadn't been, it wouldn't have been mentioned, would it have? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a closer look at those:

  1. Post-Gazzette article when the author says the league is "well-rememberd" he is using satire. This is evident from phrases like "then things got worse" and he refers to "Chambersburg, Cumberland, and Hagerstown" as "garden spots" in the article. Remember, this is after the player got a 66% pay cut to play in this league, to $50 a game., Heck,William Heffelfinger got $500 a game in 1892-this is some 80 years later!
  2. Observer-Reporter article is offline and I do not have access to it. I've run an online search at the paper and it didn't turn anything up, but it's likely their online archives are incomplete.
  3. AP wire story I'm not sure which one you mean -- it's not clear in the reference section.

This brings be back to the original question: "Of the articles I can read online, they all seem to be about an individual rather than about the league. For the offline references, do these suffer the same shortfall or are they truly about the league?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AP wire story and this is the Observer-Reporter article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was supposed to note that I was invited here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The V and RS concerns have been largely resolved. NSPORTS, as usual, is worse than useless. But going by the precident used in association football, the league itself is probably notable, the teams almost definitely aren't. In the same way that teams in bigger leagues are often considered notable, but their players not. —WFC— 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Truth be told, I'm somewhat baffled by football project members on the one hand hotly asserting that obscure football coaches from teensy collegiate amateur programs are presumptively notable, while on the other hand claiming that entire semi-pro leagues aren't. I am utterly baffled by attempts to hijack the notability criteria of NSPORTS, which in the case of football solely pertain to individuals, and apply it to entire leagues, without any consensus on the subject. Gain a consensus over at NSPORTS for league criteria first.  Ravenswing  04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seaboard_Football_League&oldid=1068842161"