Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia Adult League Softball

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Just a note, this article is not being deleted for being promotional. If there is promotional language it can always be removed through editing. This article is being deleted because notability has not been established. And just so that no one feels targeted, we go through about 80-100 of these discussions every day and it almost always comes down to whether or not notability can be established through reliable, secondary, independent sources. Often, even very well-known subjects don't have a verification of notability (as Wikipedia judges notability) so there is no shame there. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Adult League Softball

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Philadelphia Adult League Softball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for a local adult rec softball league fails WP:NORG. A quick source review:

My before search did not turn up any other qualifying sources. Draftification was contested by the page creator, who may have a conflict of interest since the creator claims to be the one who took photos used of the league in the article ([14], [15], [16]), so here we are at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Pennsylvania. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Philadelphia Inquirer and the PBS affiliate WHYY both qualify as non-trivial and significantly covered sources. User Dclemens1971 is making a lot of baseless accusations about an extremely inconsequential page I created. To suggest that any of this is "promotional" or at all below standard is to call into question the nature of page creation for almost anything not already conventionally known. I hope whoever is involved decides not to delete this harmless and informative page about a recreational softball league in the city of Philadelphia. Adamherp (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Philadelphia Inquirer is a single paragraph. The WHYY source you flag is actually BillyPenn.com, a local "happenings" blog for Philadelphia affiliated with WHYY, which fails the test of WP:AUD under WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... a single paragraph from a notable source ("the biggest daily newspaper in any US state" as per the Audience test you've linked... which the Inquirer is in Pennsylvania) is still a citation from a notable source. It is most certainly not inconsequential as the entire purpose of the article is to list notable sports leagues. That is not trivial no matter how you slice it. Irrelevant given the breadth of other sources. As for the BillyPenn page you link, it directly says "Founded in 2014 as a startup, in 2019 we joined WHYY, the region’s NPR and PBS public media affiliate." You've simply made up that it is a "local happenings blog." And nothing about that suggests it fails the Audience test per notability regardless. If you knew what you were talking about in terms of Philadelphia, you would know that these outlets are per se regional given the vast suburban sprawl that is southeastern PA and southern NJ, no "Philadelphia" entity is local in that sense, given how regional networks work on the East Coast. You are just grasping for straws on this. Like, delete the page if you want, others seem to agree, but don't pretend to be doing it by the book. You got it in your head that I have a conflict of interest and am "promoting" something. You're wrong and for whatever reason decided to double and triple down. Adamherp (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every city has numerous adult recreational sports leagues for a variety of sports – I play in a couple! These are not notable, and these sources are purely routine local interest and not substantive enough to establish notability for a generic local organization. My multisport leagues are even chapters of national organizations that put on national tournaments every year and likely have a lot more sources available, but I still wouldn't make an article for them. Reywas92Talk 17:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do those recreational leagues attach to a non-profit 501C(3) that organizes a program run in concert with the mayor of Freetown, Sierra Leone and the Sierra Leone Cricket Association...? Adamherp (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A recreational softball league is rarely notable and this one is no exception. Something like this is always going to get some routine coverage, but there is nothing extensive enough to warrant being kept. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete working with other organizations and government entities is not an indicator of notability. There is not enough in-depth reliable coverage to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2025 (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/Philadelphia_Adult_League_Softball&oldid=1274495064"