Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Allsopp Shield

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Allsopp Shield

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)~~

fails WP:GNG. also nominating sister competition: Esther Deason Shield. don't see how an under 16 competition (even if it's national) which are just mainly results listings merits an article. secondly, it gets no coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important trophy of long standing. I agree that it needs a lot more than just a list of winners, and that the list of winners might be overdone. I do not agree with the opinion that it's "under 16" status is a reason for deletion. I'd also like more assurance that it receives no coverage in mainstream press. (I'm in the U.S., so I don't have a lot of access to Australian mainstream press.)

Also, this page, which is about the Allsopp shield, was reached from the AFD link on the Esther Deason Shield. Please untangle this. Lou Sander (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" This is an important trophy of long standing." Is not a criterion for notability. Neither tournament gets anything in gnews. It is not "important" in the context of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and nothing in a major Aust news site [1]. Please provide evidence of significant coverage of this event. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need to untangle, one AfD can cover to 2 very similar topics. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to indicate importance. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It IS an important trophy in its field. We are not talking about something new, or "made up", or that is of interest only to a very few people. The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article, or that there aren't sources in the print literature of Australian softball. And of course there's no "need" to untangle, just as there's no "need" to capitalise and punctuate sentences, or to spell correctly. Cleome (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

being important is not the same as notable. This is an active competiton that receives no coverage in mainstream press. No sources = no article. Past 2 keep votes convince me no sources exist.LibStar (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One would not generally expect an under 16s softball trophy to be notable, but of course there is always a chance of finding that a particular case is an exception, so I have searched. I found no evidence of notability. For example, the first few Google hits cover Wikipedia, facebook, www.nt.softball.org.au (clearly not an independent source), sites offering a collection of articles from Wikipedia and like sources for sale, pages that briefly mention it, etc. Other searches similarly failed to indicate notability. The article itself offers no sources. As for the reasons given for keeping: What does "important" mean? does it mean "I personally think it's important"? if not, then it is necessary to indicate significant reliable sources that indicate that it is "important". "Of long standing" and "We are not talking about something new" are totally irrelevant: some brand new things receive significant coverage very quickly, some things that have been around for centuries have received very little attention. Nobody has suggested that it is "made up", so that is irrelevant too: it is not helpful to provide answers to reasons which have not been proposed. As for "I'd also like more assurance that it receives no coverage", the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep to show that there are sources: simply saying "for all we know there may be sources and you haven't shown that there aren't" is no good. Wikipedia requires evidence that sources exist, not a presumption that sources may exist even though none of us has seen them. "The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article": no, but the fact that nobody has provided reliable sources (whether online or otherwise) is, especially when several people have searched and come up with zilch. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very well said James. People come up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES lame arguments without a shred of evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this essay is so unacceptable that it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere, MFD is this way. Reyk _YO! 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. 1) Is it possible to post something here without impolite and disagreeable, if not borderline uncivil, commentary from folks who want to delete the article? 2) Is it possible that they can stop the endless repetition of their points in favor of deletion? (We heard them the first time. And the second. Etc.) 3) Is it possible that a national trophy, compteted for over many years by teams from several Australian states, and that is of great importance to indigenous Australians without writing or computers, might just be something that has some "notability," apart from coverage of it in sources easily found on Google. 4) Is it possible that if some sources can be found they won't be unreasonably ignored?

I ask these questions because I have a friend who is knowledgeable in Australian softball, and who is willing to do the research necessary to find non-online sources. She is willing to put in the time, but I am concerned that whatever she finds will be dismissed by the same uncooperative voices. Cleome (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question have you found any reliable sources to demonstrate this subject meeting WP:GNG. this is not being uncooperative. every article is assessed against notability guidelines not because WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Nobody has answered your questions, but the answers have emerged. 1) No. 2) No. 3) Yes. 4) No. Birfday (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found some sources. I believe I've found some sources for these trophies and other aspects of Aussie softball. They are coming from Australia, so it might take a while. (I hope I can get electronic copies, but I've ordered hard copies, just to be sure.) The sources are a series of programs from the playoffs themselves, and the book Batter Up! by Lynn Embrey. Chapter 3 of the book is said to be an authoritative treatment of the championships. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't want to be premature in adding it as a source. Lou Sander (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline that states, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified that the AfD notice at Esther Deason Shield is linking to this AfD. I am making a non-admin procedural removal of this AfD notice at Esther Deason Shield, where a "procedural closure" is a "null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed." This closure is without prejudice to an immediate AfD nomination for Esther Deason Shield which would be the first such nomination. Note that Speedy keep criteria #1 supports this removal, which reads as follows, "The nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." The nominator's statement is that "it gets no coverage in the mainstream press" which is either a comment about Arthur Allsopp Shield or has no interpretation. Likewise, the !vote made by JamesBWatson contains repeated references to "it". Again, this closure is without prejudice to an immediate nomination of Esther Deason Shield for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and read several reliable sources for this article, and added two of them to the article. I can add the other two if necessary. I also did some minor expansion and reconfiguration of the article. I'm hoping that this is enough to get the article removed from the AFD category, and to get the AFD tag removed from the main article. Lou Sander (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neither of the added sources are third party. This still fails WP:GNG. ~

LibStar (talk)

Two more sources added. Lou Sander (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 minor references in regional newspapers hardly adds notability. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sources are found, uncooperative people can find ways to impeach them. It's a game and a lifestyle with them. I hope you are not one of them. Lou Sander (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the test here is whether notability is met not about being uncooperative. I don't see sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage it has received does not add up to notability - which is not surprising, given that it is a junior competition, in a minority sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs)

Keep. I, and possibly others, have been deterred from commenting because every "Keep" is responded negatively to by the person favoring the deletion, and every "Delete" is responded to with cheerleading from the same source. We all recognize that citations are the sine qua non of notability. But apart from the matter of citations, we can infer that this shield might just be notable due to its longstanding existence and its status as an integral part of Australian softball; that might keep us looking, in spite of some partisans not being able to find any citations. Regarding citations, there formerly were none, and now people have found some. Assertions that anyone is claiming WP:ILIKEIT are incorrect; nobody has claimed that. Instead, they have found some sources (which have also drawn negative comments). Similarly, comments about WP:MUSTBESOURCES are out of place. Nobody has said that. Instead, they have gone looking for sources, and they have found some. One can infer that there might be a little WP:OWN going on here, and that any sources other than those in academic peer-reviewed journals, the full text of which is available online, will be seen by some as inadequate. 74.109.248.67 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.109.248.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

you have failed to demonstrate the existence of indepth significant coverage, I'm expecting major newspapers not academic journals. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - unfortunately, to the chagrin of those involved, softball in Australia, especially at junior levels, is a school/family/friends activity only. You will never find independent sources, other than local newspapers, because anyone interested enough to write articles will almost certainly be involved with the organisation in some way. This can be seen by the four sources found, two are low readership local newspapers, one is a gameday program and the other is published by the Australian Softball Federation. I suggest that it be redirected into the article on Arthur Allsopp - who is definitely notable enough because he played cricket at first class level - no idea if his softball experience would qualify on its own - or Softball in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There ARE sources. I, too, object to the constant negative and uncalled-for comments by editors with agendas. One notes that they are also on a campaign to delete other articles on related topics. Nice life, that. There might be some merit in combining some of these articles in something about Australian softball or its competitions. I am working on finding other sources. Birfday (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes there are sources, but almost all are primary sources not third party reliable sources. I hold this subject to the same standard any article up for deletion, notability must be met, there is no other agenda. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more sources here all third party reliable sources. Gnan garra 01:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hardly indepth coverage about the actual competition. merely confirms people participating it. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hardly a suprising response from you, yet again. These sources shows it does have significant coverage, in multiple locations across Australia by multiple independent reliable sources. I might support a merger to an article on Arthur Allsop but there isnt one yet. Your dogged abuse of every person who has a differing opinion of you is rather disruptive and I suggest you take a step back allow others express their opinion then trust an independent admin make the closure appropriate decision. Gnan garra 07:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your sources merely confirm people that have played in it in regional newspapers. don't see how that qualifies as indepth coverage. no major Australian city wide newspaper has reported this truly national competition. nor has Australia's national broadcaster [2]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my niece got a mention in a suburban newspaper for being selected in state championships for soccer at Under 16. guess that makes the competition notable. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two points City of Penrith population is 184,000 thats a major city in Australia, it aint a state championship its a national championship. Gnan garra 09:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith is part of the greater Sydney area. we never talk about the capital cities of Australia + Penrith. city in australia can refer to large municipalities. just like there is Fairfield city. these are not cities in the international sense. secondly this is a junior national championship that receives any sparing mentions in the press. not an adult national championship. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so agree its a nation competition not a state competition which you were calling it earlier. Gnan garra 09:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the fairfax owned penrith star has a 50,000 plus circulation, in population 180,000 1 in 3 in the region. Gnan garra 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still it's not a city. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a national competition, with a long recorded history. The article as noted above has since its AfD notification been referenced using third party sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

noting inappropriate comment by libstar rewored and ensuing discussion moved to talk page with this edit by Libstar. Gnan garra 11:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

passing references and not indepth coverage. do we cover all national competitions for 15 year olds.LibStar (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a junior national competition that gets no national coverage nor coverage in any major capital city newspaper. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the references look good - newspapers & a book. I'm not really sure, but this seems to be a support article for Softball Australia, to declutter the main article? and linked from ASF National Championships (perhaps this one could be deleted as it seems to be almost duplicate of the section in Softball Australia. there are separate pages for all the competitions. I looked at some of the players/winner's names for patterns and there are some showing up in under 16s Arthur Allsopp Shield then later in under 19s Nox Bailey Shield & even then to the mens opens winners John Reid Shield (eg Andrew Kirkpatrick in 2000/u16 & 2003/u19 & 2006/mens open; David Shearer (2001/u16 & 2003/u19 for example - there may be others, I stopped looking after seeing these 2 examples) I'm not really familiar with men's softball, but I don't see any reason to select against 16s and just delete their pages, especially when the older players/awards pages are also listed. perhaps unrelated, but I did a basic search on Andrew Kirkpatrick to see if he seemed like an important player and at a quick glance he seems to play at international games. so this article might also be useful as a support article/background for players such as him to show their career progression/history? (just voting since I noticed the relisting on Australia page watch) Kathodonnell (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

career progression is best shown in an individual sportsperson's article. secondly, refs don't look good. 2 passing mentions in small newspapers, one book which is a primary source published by the Softball federation. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in terms of other minor shields should not be used as a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states, "...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.' " Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I still can't see general notability. Perhaps a merge with Softball Australia?Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:12, 17 June 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.