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. Past consensus is that articles of this sort are not desirable, and the delete arguments make a convincing case that this article is, also, not desirable for a team at this level of the sport. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Hillsboro Hops season

[edit]

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

Minor leagues seasons were established as non-notable a long time ago. Any content would be far better suited in the main Hillaboro article. Wizardman 15:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Numerous minor league season pages have been deleted as non-notable, and just because it's their first season after moving doesn't change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How about a link to one of those prior discussions? Otherwise I have added only a few sources, and there are usually at least two sources for each game, thus it would meet the WP:GNG - which usually trumps the generally speaking types of items. I understand perhaps in the past people just looked these as minor league seasons, but even minor league teams get as much media coverage as small college football teams, and we do have seasons for those. We also do seasons for what are in essence minor league soccer teams. And before someone mentions WP:OTHERSTUFF please note that cuts both ways with the arguments above regarding ones that were deleted. Lastly, since the argument for deletion is notability, did the nominator complete the required WP:BEFORE? Again, hopefully that helps make the point that each article should be considered on its merits, as the general outcomes is really where you are judging a topic to determine if the article is notable on an inherit basis, instead of judging it for what is actually in the article. As in, is the topic notable on its own when you put aside that some prior seasons may have been deleted? Otherwise it is like saying numerous road articles have been deleted as non-notable, therefor all road articles should be deleted, and that is simply faulty logic. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe honestly that all tens of thousands of former minor league baseball seasons are worth an article? The discussion in question (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980 Lynn Sailors season) was on a AAA team, one that could be argued as close to the majors. This is a bottom-level minor league team. This would be akin to a college football season article on a division 3 school, or a very low footy division. It's ridiculous. Wizardman 05:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have articles on every band/musician/politician/restaurant owner/soldier and so on? You know we do not. Instead we take each one on its own merits and judge each by the notability standards. In fact, we do not have any "never" notable categories of articles. Instead, the subject matter notability guidelines are for basically automatically notable topics, not the opposite as you are attempting to assert, which that assertion would be the one that is ridiculous. And to be perfectly honest, given the media coverage, I would not be surprised if each minor league season would actually pass the GNG for those seasons in the last say ten years, and certainly for all at the AAA and AA level. Each minor league game is usually covered at a minimum by the home and away newspapers, most are broadcast on the radio, some are broadcast on TV, and there appears to be a variety of online media that covers MILB, and most of the local newspapers cover the season in more depth than just the game recaps - previews, stories on players. Then look at attendance, which can run to around 100,000 for the season for even short-season A teams like this, which is a lot more than many Div. I FCS teams do for attendance for an entire season. In other words, the media coverage is there due to the economic impact these teams have, and thus why they pass the GNG. Certainly not at the same level of a major league team or an NFL team, but we do not compare the level of notability, only that it meets the minimum. Much like the bar exams do not tell you how good of an attorney one is if they pass, only that they meet the minimum competency. That's what the GNG is, minimal notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And after reviewing the AfD you noted, I doubt all the editors would agree that this one was not, and contrary to the nomination here it certainly did not establish ALL minor league seasons are non-notable. Many noted the particular season was not "inherently" notable, which means it has to be shown, and it is in this case. In fact, one might take from the nom that being the inaugural season might just be the significant thing some of the editors in the old AfD were looking for. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the above logic, individual games would be notable, since each game receives coverage from multiple news outlets. I disagree. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some individual games are in fact notable, not any for this team though. Keep in mind a few sources per game would not be enough for an individual article, as you need more. By the end of the season there would likely be a couple hundred articles covering this season, but nice straw man argument. The fact is, there is a reason why the AfD process automatically provides a way for people to find sources so that actually notability can be determined, instead of opinions that an entire category could never be notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other AfDs that closed as delete aside from that one. If I have time, I'll try to dig them up later (it's in here somewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 Nashville Sounds season showed (near) unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I would not be surprised if there are more, but did you look at those debates? While all led to deletion, there was never a consensus that I could see that every season can never be notable. Some put that thought out there, but it was not universal. Frankly, there is no category of topics that are deemed non-notable, despite the assertion. If there is, please point me to the guideline. Given one doubtfully exists, there is a reason: GNG trumps all as to inclusion. This should be clear by the WP:BEFORE requirement on ALL AfDs, which should procedurally do away with this AfD, though my guess is no one here cares about following the Wikipedia-wide rules and guidelines and instead want to hold on to some preconceived notions regarding notability within the sports realm instead of focusing on the merits of the individual article. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other AFDs can be found here[1] and here[2]...William 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Season pages for minor league teams are overkill and not needed. At most, each season should get a brief summary on the team's page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is very well sourced, far surpassing the general notability guideline. Whether or not others create articles about other teams' seasons, as others have brought up, is not relevant to this discussion. The GNG is. -Pete (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had respect for you and aboutmovies, so it's quite shocking to me that you're supporting such a blatantly non-notable article. Let's try a closer way of looking at it. None of the sources showcase GNG for the specific season. They showcase GNG for the Hillsboro Hops as a whole easily enough, and the team's article is worth developing. However, you guys have failed in explaining here or above why the content cannot be in the main team article. Minor league seasons fail GNG, plain and simple. Wizardman 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do WP:BEFORE as required? I have to ask, as if you had, you would find what you are looking for. Notability is not about keeping the info in certain areas, as the only thing that matters is the GNG (and to an extent WP:NOT, but since we do season articles in general then NOT is not in play). But, the reason is once the season is over my personal plans are to add in attendance info, batting/pitching stats, and a complete roster. I think that might clutter up the page, and after a few seasons worth of that info you can see the reason in general why we have season articles. Can you explain how it fails the GNG when there are currently 12 sources there? More to the point, how many sources do you need for GNG? I ask as I'm fairly certain I could get it to 100 if that's what it takes. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References you refer to are little more than routine game coverage. Far from substantial coverage. Article has no content outside of the game log. Spanneraol (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Spanner says, it's the quality of sources, not the quantity. All the ones in the article are routine game coverage, and aren't notability-establishing, or establishing of anything other than the fact that games were played. By your standards, every single game they played that you have a source for would get its own article. Wizardman 15:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently neither of you appears to understand notability. I say this because both of you are judging the topic by the existing article, which is a no-no. Remember, we judge the topic, not the article. Again, this is why WP:BEFORE exists: look for the sources that demonstrate notability. We do not delete non-notable articles, we delete non-notable topics. That is to say, again, neither of you spent so much as minute looking for the sources. I spent about two, and going back just for this month alone, here are the non-game recap articles on the team just from The Oregonian's site (a major, daily newspaper): [3] [4] [5] (different than the other on the guy) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. More from the same paper can be found if you look.

Engouh with the straw man argument about individual game's notability. As I said above, and is quit clearly covered at the GNG, you need more than just a few articles to make something notable. A single game rarely has that.

Otherwise, how about you just admit you do not like minor league seasons, as at-least you would be honest here.

Lastly, as to respect, I respect editors who follow the rules. Which means we do this old school style and let things be governed by the GNG, and we follow policy (e.g. WP:BEFORE). So far, BEFORE certainly was not followed, so there is one policy violation (the deletion policy), and the fact that editors have the audacity to proclaim certain categories as non-notable shows the GNG is not being followed. Notability is not inherited, nor would non-notability. The basic premise we have for inclusion on Wikipedia is two-fold: each article is judged on its own, and that sources exist to avoid the OR and allow for verifiability. I find it a good idea for editors to remind themselves why we have the inclusion standards, as it seems far to often editors get into little boxes, who then want the inclusion to revolve around their world view of what is notable to them. As in, it often comes down to I have not heard of this topic or it seems to limited in scope geographically, so we should not have it. But the reason we have inclusion criteria was never to make this about having only topics of world-wide or even national recognition, but instead to ensure we have accurate articles: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." Failing to do so leads to lots of wasted time when people fail to get what we are doing here and we have to explain how the guidelines work. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you list above do nothing to establish the notability of the season.. Most of them are about individual player transactions which are more about the players than the team and the others help with the notability of the team itself but not necessarily that THIS SEASON is that important.Spanneraol (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. Article makes no claim to notability and in fact has very little content. All that the article says is that the team exists and played some games... Article only contains a game log... something that can be found on multiple other websites. Article creators arguments that the season has coverage is meaningless, by that basis even many high school teams have game by game coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While high school teams often do, is that coverage for every game on an in-depth basis by a large newspaper? Maybe where you are from, but where I'm from you get a couple paragraphs at most and maybe a league overview. Also, what is a claim to notability? I've heard that before, but since notability is demonstrated via multiple RS, I have yet to get the concept. Or more to the point, I've never found that in the GNG, only what I wrote about multiple RS. As in, an article does not become notable because the article says they are notable for this or that, the article is notable because the topic is notable (again, articles are not notable, it is the topic) as demonstrated by the sources. And frankly, your description may be accurate as to what the article shows, but that would be an argument against all season articles for all sports: team existed, played some games, lost some, won some. And what does the availability of the information elsewhere have to do with anything? Again, I'm not seeing that in the GNG, can you quote me that section? Personally, I like to stick the guidelines and policies, not random thought processes that if thought through would mean the editor believes Wikipedia articles should not exist if we can find the information elsewhere, which due to the OR limitations we have means we should not have articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nothing you have written shows that THIS SEASON is notable enough for it's own article.... THE TEAM is notable but not the season. The article has NO CONTENT and is just a gamelog which on its own is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. The "topic" of a minor league baseball season has no lasting notability. The standings and statistics of minor league teams don't matter at all in the overall theme of professional baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with you. You simply do not get what notability is. Again, I implore you to read the GNG: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." (emphasis added) The fact you keep talking about the article (e.g. "NO CONTENT") completely and totally demonstrates your lack of understanding of notability. We judge the topic, not the article. Repeat as many times as you need to so you get it. So, when we judge an article at AfD, we look at the topic, which means we see if the topic is notable by looking not just at the article, but other sources that can be found. Again, this ties into why WP:BEFORE is required and given that was not done is grounds enough to invalidate the AfD. Not to mention, importance does not matter. Again, read the GNG: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." (please note both of my quotes here come from the the lede of the GNG, which is where the really important parts of the guideline are located. We simply do not care that much about importance, only notability as demonstrated by the sources. That also means, we don't actually care if this is a minor league team or your local bowling league. What matters, the only thing that matters, is whether the coverage exists. Granted, your local bowling league is almost guaranteed to not have sources, while a major league team generally does. But we do not make blanket determinations that all of such and such can never be notable.

Also, there is more than just a game log, but whatever.

Lastly, each of the articles I listed above do help confer notability, as would coverage of individual games where it goes beyond WP:ROUTINE (as in more than a two paragraph recap), as that is what the season is about. A season is a series of games and roster moves. Not to mention, if the nominator had looked for some sources, even more are out there. As I said, I only went back the beginning of the month, and the coverage has be running for months leading up to the season. Again, look for the sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will go on and on with more rambling nonsense and insults.. but the TOPIC of this particular season is simply not notable and your sources do not show that the season, as opposed to the team or the players, is notable. The gamelog by itself violates WP:NOTSTATS and the rest of the content (what little there is) can easily be incorporated into the main Hillsboro article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find Wikipedia guidelines and policy to be nonsense, that's sad. Anyway, how many sources do you need? And, just because the current information could be merged, that has nothing to do with notability. Merging is an alternate to deletion. But let me know how many sources you want. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wholeheartedly agree with Spanneraol's argument. The idea that an individual low-level minor league season is notable is absurd. Penale52 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is an almanac in addition to being an encyclopedia and a gazetteer. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" =/= "is an almanac" – Muboshgu (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are indeed many sources, but they are the kind of routine local news coverage that doesn't really establish encylopedic notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed the non-game coverage sources mentioned above, not to mention a season is not an event, thus ROUTINE has no applicability. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Spanneraol notes, there is no content outside the game log. Plus, we would be littered with thousands of articles about minor league seasons if this was allowed. Not notable. Mpejkrm (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guideline or policy that says we delete articles to keep more out? I mean, in general, we judge each article on its own. Otherwise, should we go ahead and delete all articles except what Britannica had circa 1999 so we don't have too many? Seriously, do you even understand why we have inclusion criteria? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... to keep out articles like this.Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming you should not be involved in AfDs until you understand why the inclusion criteria exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... this article is about a non notable topic... you do not understand the policies you keep quoting. Spanneraol (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable....William 00:42, 29 July 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.