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. Substantial coverage in reliable sources do seem to lead most participants to agree this passes WP:N. There's something of a collision of notability standards here - the fact that they play in the top tier of a national league in the sport should make them notable without question, but the sheer obscurity of American football in Britain means it's actually rather borderline. Nonetheless, the prevailing opinion does seem to be to keep this; although this close should not preclude a possible discussion about the notability of BAFL teams overall. ~ mazca ^talk 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster Mustangs (American football)[edit]

Fails WP:ORG, and would certainly fail WP:ATHLETE if it extended to athletic organisations. I can find no references that are reputable, detailed and independent of the source. There are many that fulfill two of three (their website, the website of BAFL, so on) but nothing decent. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this BAFL a professional American football league or semi-pro that would help make a decision; I found a few refs; [1], [2], [3] not sure what help it would be though. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, didn't see those. Certainly not professional, and I'm not sure what role local news would play in this sort of thing (you'd expect them to cover local sporting activities, really). Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as I'd like us to have articles about American football in Europe, I don't think this has met the standards. Improve the article and I'll change my mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as refs [1] & [2] in the Doncaster Free Press found by Marcusmax above are significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, as is [4] in The Star. WP:ATHLETE does not apply to teams, only individuals, so whether the team is amateur or professional doesn't matter. The fact that these sources are local or regional papers is irrelevant; what matters is that the coverage is significant, which it certainly is as these articles are specifically about this single team (mentions in passing, e.g. [3] above, or inclusion in lists of scores or league tables would not be enough). The article certainly needs improvement and expansion, but that's not a reason to delete it. --Qwfp (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Just found another article with significant coverage in another regional newspaper, the Northern Echo: [5]. Qwfp (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They aren't professional. Mentions in the local press about them should be discounted since the local press has to report on local events. That's what they do. They report on high school sports, local bowling leagues and semi-pro teams that play in their area. That's not notability, that's just filling space. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the Doncaster team less notable than the other 20 or so BAFL franchises? I note there is a substantial article about the BAFL as well as articles on most teams. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The others may be non-notable as well, they just haven't been nominated for deletion yet. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we should look at teh BAFL as a whole to determine whether it is notable. If BAFL is notable, then each team presumably should be included. Before deleting this particular team's article, I think a broader inquiry should be undertaken into the notability of the BAFL. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That logic doesn't necessarily apply. If we're using WP:ORG here and BAFL has multiple references, fine, but that doesn't automatically make the clubs notable unless they've got the required amount of coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether this team is professional or not should be irrelevant. Although it would be of relevance to an athlete there's already precedence, with soccer teams, that notabality extends far lower for teams than for individuals, well into the non-professional teams. Personally I'm still undecided whether they meet the notabality requirements or not. Dpmuk (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply to clubs, and semi-professional and amateur teams can be notable. WP:ORG is essentially just re-wording of WP:GNG, which I am not convinced this team fails. In my research, there appears to be some (although not terribly extensive) media coverage of this team's results and the occasional news story. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this the club compete at the highest tier of American football in the United Kingdom? Strikehold (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, division one is the second tier (the first is the premier division). In any case with the tiny amount of interest American football gets in the United Kingdom it'd be like being in the first tier of the American Urine Quaffing Championships. not suprising, really, since American football nicked football's name and rugby's general principle, added about 3 tons of padding per play and lo! Rugby for Pansies. No idea why you people love it so. Ironholds (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I asked a couple days ago about the status of the BAFL before weighing in on this. It appears that the BAFL is the highest level of American football in the U.K. The BAFL appears to meet notability standards, and every team in the league has an article. Before deleting the article on this particular franchise within the BAFL, an argument needs to be made as to why the BAFL is not notable. The main article on BAFL indicates it has been around since 1998 and has received coveage in major media outlets, including the BBC. Based on the news coverage, and the BAFL's status as the primary American football in the U.K., I think the BAFL (and its teams) warrant inclusion -- despite User:Ironholds' tongue-in-cheek (I assume) assertion that only "pansies" play the sport. Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed humour, but beware of making an inappropriate argument here - BAFL getting coverage means it passes WP:ORG, fine, but that isn't the same as the teams in it passing WP:ORG unless they themselves have such coverage. See WP:INHERITED. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources posted in this AfD are independent and significant in coverage to pass WP:GNG should they be included in the article. --Jimbo^[online] 15:25, 28 July 2009 (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.