Talk:Orlando Guardians
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2023. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability concern
[edit]The addition of the notability tag was reverted with the summary that "there is not a notability issue" but the lack of significant coverage in independent sources in the article very clearly show otherwise. Most of the sources are trivial mentions (at best) of this team. This is just a series of quotes from Buckley and so isn't independent coverage and this is about a coach and the coverage of this article's subject is trivial. Sources don't support this article and the tag was added to make editors aware of that, but if notability isn't going to be improved/demonstrated and this is the best the article can offer then it needs to be brought to AfD, because this doesn't cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://xflnewshub.com/xfl-news/more-details-on-the-rock-purchase-of-the-xfl-how-many-bidders | ~ Just a series of quotations from other primary sources. | 
|
 Article is about the XFL and makes no mention of this team.
|
✘ No |
| https://komonews.com/sports/sports-content/seattle-chosen-as-one-of-8-inaugural-teams-for-new-xfl-football-league |
|
|
Article is about the XFL, makes no mention of this team and only briefly alludes to the fact that it has chosen cities for their teams.
|
✘ No |
| https://nypost.com/2019/04/15/xfl-lands-super-bowl-giants-coach-kevin-gilbride-for-new-york-team/ |
|
Tabloid newspaper: WP:NYPOST.
|
Article is about a coach and only breifly mentions "the league’s unnamed New York franchise". Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself
|
✘ No |
| https://www.middletownpress.com/sports/article/Jeff-Jacobs-Gilbride-s-XFL-experience-15224824.php |
|
|
Article is about the former coach's relationship with the XFL, has only a passing mention of the New York Guardians.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-News/2020/04/XFL.aspx |
|
Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Business Journals / bizjournals.com
|
Article is about the XFL, makes only a passing mention of the New York Guardians.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.plantcityobserver.com/xfl-turns-eyes-to-plant-city/ |
|
|
Article is about a different team possibly moving to Orlando, makes no mention of this team in any capacity.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/xfl-announces-eight-host-cities-for-relaunch-in-2023-no-new-york-california-teams-for-first-time-in-league/ | ~ It's mostly just repeating an announcement from the XFL |
|
Only has a very brief mention of the then-unnamed team inside a table and a passing mention of the New York Guardians.
|
✘ No |
| https://xflnewshub.com/xfl-news/xfl-teams-names-leaked-online-some-old-some-new-some-surprising-changes/ |
|
|
Only a brief mention of the team's name
|
✘ No |
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/orlando-e2-80-99s-new-xfl-team-is-the-guardians/ar-AA13zNb0 | ~ Local coverage: WP:AUD |
|
Despite the name of the article, everything about the Guardians themselves is a quote from the coach and thus not independent, and even that is trivial. Everything else is about the coaches themsevles.
|
✘ No |
| https://xflnewsroom.com/news/terrell-buckley-reportedly-joining-xfl-as-head-coach-of-new-orlando-franchise/ | Per their disclaimer at the bottom of the page
|
? | Article is about the coach and makes no mention of the team, only a passing mention about the city of Orlando.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-sp-xfl-0725-20220725-25q7qrl3pzerzlsrkep3byhh2u-story.html | ~ Local coverage: WP:AUD |
|
Local WP:CHURN. Everything relevant is a quote from the coach, thus not independent. Take away the quotes and everything remaining is about the XFL teams as awhole and only passing mention that one will be in Orlando.
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- The team's already played a season of pro football in the XFL, will be playing a second (so will receive even more coverage for sure) and has received plenty of coverage already for it: [1] [2] [3] (and lots more from that website) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (just for when they were in New York York) [15] [16] [17] (the past three were just made yesterday!) [18] [19] [20] and [21], and I'm sure I missed a lot. This is clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unless there's a more specific notability guideline, WP:NTEAM says WP:GNG is the relevant guideline, so "already played a season of pro football" doesn't matter, the sources do. As for those sources, that's a lackluster list: this is trivial coverage, this could not possibly be more trivial, this is a fan site with no editorial oversight, and that's just the first three that were described as "plenty of coverage already". This is "plenty of coverage"? That's worrying, and looks like you just copy-pasted anything that matched the article's name rather than curated a list of worthwhile sources. This article was and remains unready for mainspace, and cobbling together a shoddy list doesn't change that. Rather than throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, what's the WP:THREE sources for this article? The "past three made yesterday" are schedules, explicitly a type of trivial coverage. This article may be many things, but at this point "clearly notable" is in no way one of them. - Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still stand by my opinion that this is clearly notable. You may nominate it at AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I went through and examined each of the 20 references you provided:
- I still stand by my opinion that this is clearly notable. You may nominate it at AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unless there's a more specific notability guideline, WP:NTEAM says WP:GNG is the relevant guideline, so "already played a season of pro football" doesn't matter, the sources do. As for those sources, that's a lackluster list: this is trivial coverage, this could not possibly be more trivial, this is a fan site with no editorial oversight, and that's just the first three that were described as "plenty of coverage already". This is "plenty of coverage"? That's worrying, and looks like you just copy-pasted anything that matched the article's name rather than curated a list of worthwhile sources. This article was and remains unready for mainspace, and cobbling together a shoddy list doesn't change that. Rather than throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, what's the WP:THREE sources for this article? The "past three made yesterday" are schedules, explicitly a type of trivial coverage. This article may be many things, but at this point "clearly notable" is in no way one of them. - Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- ...and only one of them was even marginally usable as far as notability is concerned. You say it's "clearly notable" but it's not clearly anything of the sort. Clear would be well-established with sources, and this doesn't meet even that very basic standard. With this list and what I found online it would be lucky to limp past WP:GNG with one or two more sources, but those are lacking at this time so it's not "clearly" notable, it's not even "arguably" notable, as with the sources so far mentioned and what I was able to find it fails WP:GNG; that's not clear notability. If this is the best of the best as far as sourcing is concerned, I think it warrants a discussion at AfD. Do you have two more sources so that WP:THREE is met? I don't think that's an unreasonable ask; if it's so clearly notable that should be an easy thing to provide. - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- We're not going to change each other's opinion. Just take it to AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- ...and only one of them was even marginally usable as far as notability is concerned. You say it's "clearly notable" but it's not clearly anything of the sort. Clear would be well-established with sources, and this doesn't meet even that very basic standard. With this list and what I found online it would be lucky to limp past WP:GNG with one or two more sources, but those are lacking at this time so it's not "clearly" notable, it's not even "arguably" notable, as with the sources so far mentioned and what I was able to find it fails WP:GNG; that's not clear notability. If this is the best of the best as far as sourcing is concerned, I think it warrants a discussion at AfD. Do you have two more sources so that WP:THREE is met? I don't think that's an unreasonable ask; if it's so clearly notable that should be an easy thing to provide. - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class American football articles
- Unknown-importance American football articles
- WikiProject American football articles
- Start-Class sports articles
- WikiProject Sports articles
- Start-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Start-Class Florida articles
- Low-importance Florida articles
- WikiProject Florida articles