Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Soccer Football League

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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Soccer Football League

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

Non-notable amateur soccer league. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NSPORT.

All references in the article seem to be primary sources that do not represent significant coverage from an independent and reliable source.

The league is not included in the list of leagues kept by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to assist with assessing notability.

A Google News search produces one hit that's from a local blog which can't be used to establish notability. A Google News Archive search produces two articles. One appears to be a forum and the other is a local news source that doesn't constitute significant coverage, in my opinion (it's just about soccer in the US, the league is only mentioned in passing). In short, I haven't found a single article that represents significant coverage from an independent and reliable sources.

The only claim of importance I see (the only reason I didn't nominate for A7) is that many notable people have played in the league. Notable athletes have played in many amateur leagues but that doesn't make them notable by any part of WP:N.

On a side note, the author may call you a secret racist or leave an odd message on your talk page regarding his feelings about people who are gay, incest, drug and alcohol abuse, dyslexia, "muscular orgasms", and racism. So... good luck with that. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Soccer gets little coverage in America so your measurement indexes are impartial and incomplete. An American soccer league in continuous operation since 1902 is notable and international readers would find this league's story interesting. Soccer is an international game. All sources are reliable, independent and referenced properly Editor User:OlYeller21 needs to be evaluated. Maxschweitzer (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure that your comments here comply with the discussion style laid out at WP:AFDFORMAT. These aren't "my" measurement indexes. I'm referencing guidelines created and ratified by consensus. In other words, thousands of people have built these guidelines and feel that WP:N represents the best ways to assess what should be included in the encyclopedia. Personally, I completely agree that the organization is interesting but what you or I find "interesting" is irrelevant. Sources in the article may be reliable but not all are independent and none are secondary sources. This matters because WP:GNG is very clear about those sources not being suitable for establishing notability. As for "evaluating" me, anyone and everyone is invited to evaluate me. I feel that I have violated no policise or guidelines and have been very clear about my interpretations of policies and guidelines relevant to this AfDe. I've offered my assistance but you seem to think I have something against you. I don't. to be honest, I don't care about you at all. All I care about is what's best for Wikipedia and if want my help, I'm more than willing to provide it. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maxschweitzer has misbehaved badly, with his bizarre postings on OlYeller21's talk page, and really ought to apologize or be sanctioned in some way. That being said, this is the oldest continually operating soccer league in the United States, with a history going back 111 years. That is a powerful claim of notability, and a search of Google Books and Google Scholar shows that this league meets the general notability guideline, which trumps all topic-specific guidelines. This league was the subject of two scholarly papers published in the Taylor & Francis journal, Soccer & Society, in 2009 called The promise of soccer in America: the open play of ethnic subcultures, and Soccer in America: The Marking and Open Play of Ethnicity in the San Francisco Soccer Football League. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the oldest continually operating soccer league in the United States, with a history going back 111 years" - Now that's a different story. I'm sure this is a mistake but the second book you linked doesn't have the name that you gave and only mentions "San Francisco Soccer Football League" one time. I do see where the book mentions another book by Van Rheenen's by that name. I'm guessing here but I assume you gave that link to show that the book exists. I can only find one mention of it on the internet, if that even matters. At this point, we now have two indications that independent and significant coverage exists from a reliable source and a claim about being the oldest league in the US, which is really interesting. If there was one more case of independent and significant coverage from a reliable source, I'd change my !vote. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book references Van Rheenen's journal article. There is some ambiguity about the article titles in various sources, but it is clear that serious academic work about the history of this league has been published. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, how about this additional article: Soccer fever in S.F. is not new outbreak, from the San Francisco Chronicle, newspaper of record of Northern California, published on the 100th anniversary of the league? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local source. Covered specifically in WP:ORGDEPTH. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OlYeller21, the San Francisco Chronicle is a major regional newspaper that rises far above a "local source". It has been published since 1865, has won six Pulitzer Prizes, maintains a Washington, DC bureau, is distributed throughout Northern California, and covers news of many California cities other than San Francisco. It was also one of the first newspapers to establish an expanded online edition, starting in 1994.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're absolutely correct. I'm not going to remove my nomination, basically because I think that even though I started a discussion doesn't mean that I should have the power to end it when I see fit. I've got family over now so I'll reassess the situation and re!vote tonight or tomorrow. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Work has been published on this, it had received some outside attention, oldest league soccer in the US=notable IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable. FYI to the nominatior - WP:FPL is used exclusively for assisting with player notability, not league notability. Giant Snowman 12:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? I assumed that WP:FPL was asserting that those leagues were notable enough to make notability inherent in their players, suggesting that leagues that weren't listed, weren't notable. It's not really discussed in WP:FPL as far as I can tell implying that WP:GNG takes precedent (which this subject apparently passes, barely). OlYeller21^Talktome 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, that being said the organization has not received significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources; therefore the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, those multiple mentions do not add up to what I would consider significant coverage. The subject maybe locally notable to a certain population, however I could not find reliable sources to show that it is notable at all. Perhaps it is too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the oldest, top regional leagues in the top level of amateur soccer in the United States. That is good enough in my eyes. Also the league has US Open Cup winners and the league still sends them to the tournament today. Again, that is good enough for notability. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED, individual club members maybe notable for activity outside of the organization, but that does not make the organization automatically notable.

For instance, say I were notable, just because I am part of the regular drinkers club at a local bar doesn't make the bar instantly notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN. League notability. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG supersedes FOOTYN, more specifically WP:INHERITORG.

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the argument that the league is notable because it produced notable players. On reflection, any experienced editor knows that argument doesn't fly. This league is notable because it is the oldest continually operating soccer league in the United States, which is a striking claim of notability. And also because it is the subject of significant, detailed coverage in at least two reliable, independent sources; namely, the San Francisco Chronicle, a major regional newspaper, and Soccer & Society, an academic journal. Those are the substantive reasons why the article should be kept, and everything else is beside the point.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Soccer & Society reference to the article, which clearly states that this league is "the oldest American soccer league in continuous existence." This academic journal is published by Routledge Taylor & Francis in the United Kingdom, so it is clearly not a local source. And is a comment referencing WP:TOOSOON about a 111 year old organization serious, or an April Fool's day joke? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My too soon comment is in regards to the organization itself receiving multiple significant coverage reliable sources, which I am of the present opinion that it has not yet received. If it is the oldest non-professional league in the United States perhaps it deserves a paragraph (with a redirect) under an article about non-professional soccer in the United States, but at this point, not a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2013 (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.