Talk:Birmingham Legion FC

Redirect

@The Bushranger: redirected the article, stating, "following up on the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USL Atlanta. Once the team is fully established this can be simply restored.]] and earlier, that it was WP:TOOSOON". I initially objected, twice, but that logic makes sense. More recently @Jamesmiko: stated, "every other professional sports team has its own page. There's no good reason, nor WP rule, to remove this." However, not every other professional sports team has its own page, and this team isn't like every other sports team. For association football teams, the criteria is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability states that "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." So, yes, there is a WP rule that states that the article should be a redirect. This team doesn't start play until 2020 and so it has not yet played for the Lamar Hunt trophy so it has to meet broader WP:N criteria, and with only two references, that's not happening. It is likely too soon as The Bushranger stated. If references can be supplied to meet WP:GNG, we can make a request to have the page unlocked, the redirect removed, and the article updated. Until that time, it should remain a redirect. Just to summarize, both a good reason and a rule do exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All the Other Expansion Clubs Have Articles, Why Not This Club?

All of the other expansion clubs in the United Soccer League page have their own page, so why is it that Birmingham doesn't? They got a website, they have staff, and even signed their players with the intent of starting in March of 2019. 22:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.212.202 (talk)

Apparently, there are not a sufficient number of reliable sources to show that they are notable, they don't get an article. If you'd like to create a draft page, you could start by reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation or you could make a request here. Some of the USL expansion teams that do have articles probably shouldn't, but that's a different issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz This page is about a franchise that is in the process of establishing itself. You can buy stuff in their shop yet they have never played a game. I have speedied it. Mark^Dask 17:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that buying stuff meets andy notability criteria. When it does, then we can have an article, not before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And WP:NOTADVERTISING is clear that Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising anything, including an upcoming American soccer team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

• "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...", because it contains simple facts, not promotional language. (And because every team in the league has its own article; the coach has his own article; the first signee on the roster has his own article, the home field has its own article.) --Dystopos (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dystopos please read all the comments above. Mark^Dask 21:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have. I know what "promotional" mean, and I don't detect that quality in the article as it existed before it was changed to a redirect. --Dystopos (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to join the discussion in the section above. Until the team meets some andy notability criteria we're just promoting the team. Please read those links and discuss the wording used in them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The club clearly meets the general criteria of notability (WP:GNG), which is also the standard used by the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams. It is based on verifiable independent sources and maintains a neutral point of view (the claim that the article is "unambiguously promotional" is wrong). Even if WikiProject:Football proposes higher "standards", deleting or bypassing it serves no purpose. --Dystopos (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the team does not. Show me the reliable sources that discuss the team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Some are listed here. --Dystopos (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of those look promising, but without seeing the contents of the articles it's hard to determine if they're just WP:ROUTINE, local coverage or actually in-depth coverage of the team. When they start to play, they will definitely have the required coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

So, you recommend deleting the work contributed by other Wikipedia editors until it can definitely be resurrected next year. Sounds productive. --Dystopos (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It may look like a deletion, but it's not. It's a redirect and while it's a technical difference, it is an actual difference. What sounds unproductive is when editors create articles for subjects that are not yet notable. There are articles created for actors, musicians (and bands, recordings, etc.), events (including news stories), films and other subjects that do not meet notability criteria that may meet a criteria some day. We don't know if they ever will though. Many things could still happen that will prevent this team from fielding a full roster and so we're left cleaning up the mess then. In fact, that they are unable to meet their obligations to the league may be a big enough story to allow for the creation of the article, but we should not create articles for subjects that are not currently notable. If there are other teams in this same position, I'd be happy to point the project at those to review whether they too should be a redirect until they meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for other "non-notable" entries to replace with redirects, you will find them mentioned several times in the comments above. Some others can be found here. --Dystopos (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I was asking for specifics above but didn't see any, which is why I asked. It seems you don't have any and there are none above. Looks like there aren't any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Dystopos the page you mention above as an example of something "non-notable" is, by definition noteworthy, as it treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge, that being a complete list of every episode of a comedy show that has been shown around the world; an "encyclopedic knowledge" of a world renowned subject. The show won so many awards they needed a separate page. Mark^Dask 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the individual episodes of the former sitcom which have separate articles. It's not really the point. It's just something I think about when someone tells me that an actual high school or an actual professional sports team is "not notable" enough to be part of Wikipedia. --Dystopos (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeez Dystopos I just checked the list of "current clubs" on the USL page and you're right - many of what pretend to be current clubs are in fact "upcoming". This does not change the facts regarding Birmingham Legion FC, (does not even exist yet let alone with any recognized history), but it does make your argument, given there are several "upcoming" clubs with pages much like Birmingham Legion FC. What it means is that all other "upcoming" must be redirected and their titles in the list "unlinked". In order to maintain those entities, including Birmingham Legion FC, as a legitimate feature of that page they will have to be listed under "Expansion clubs" and their existing individual pages will have to be redirected as yours is. Thank you for pointing that out. Those pages will be redirected in the coming days. Mark^Dask 03:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It does "exist" in the sense that it has officers and staff who collect paychecks and holds contracts with its stadium and various sponsors and suppliers. But the team is not scheduled to begin competing until next year. I hope we can count on your productive help at that time in re-creating readers' access to all the verifiably-sourced information that you have decided to bypass. --17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopos (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Many things exist, but that is not a notability criteria or reason for inclusion. Nothing has been deleted. It's all still there. That's been explained at least once before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lets say you spend a year organizing a party, and a million dollars contracting with caterers, musicians etc., the fact is no party "exists" until the day of the party, and the party is not "notable" until at least one independent source can confirm that the party actually happened. Ipso facto there is no club until it has met/played/debuted - in public and independently verifiable. I hope that helps. Mark^Dask 22:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's make this a reasonable comparison rather than what you just wrote. Let's say you spent a year organizing a party. You spent one million dollars contracting with caterers, musicians, and others. But no one cared enough to write about it. Then it doesn't really matter to Wikipedia because it's not notable. That's what it means to be notable: that someone actually cares enough about what's happening to write about it. No one is saying that the party doesn't happen because no one is writing about it. No one is saying that those who are invited to perform at the party won't attend because no one is writing about it. All it means is it's not notable. Stop equating existence with notability. The party may be happening, but it's not a notable party, and until it is, we do not need to have an article that discusses it, because Wikipedia articles are only guaranteed for notable subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. Mark^Dask 16:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Dystopos I've added Birmingham Legion FC to the USL list of Expansion clubs. I hope I've got the details right. Mark^Dask 20:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Me too. If you're not doing it based on a reliable source, you shouldn't be doing it at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I used the original info from the pre-redirected page. I thought as a courtesy I'd confirm with Dystopos. Mark^Dask 21:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This whole situation is ridiculous and moving around in the shadows instead of being treated properly at WP:AFD and the like. First of all, an announced expansion team of a professional league clearly meets WP:GNG because it receives coverage from local reliable sources, like newspapers and TV stations, at every step of the process: awarding the franchise, naming the franchise, signing a manager and some players...it's all there.

I'll use New Mexico United as an example, since I'm more familiar with it. Here's a good half-dozen articles from the Albuquerque Journal, a reliable source, that follows the process I listed above. Just days ago, the team organized a friendly between Liga MX clubs and the in-depth article on the event also had details of the upcoming's clubs plans and ambitions. This is pretty much on par with an MLS expansion team's early coverage...which brings up the good point of why the USL clubs are alone in being deleted while teams like Inter Miami CF and Nashville MLS team (which lacks an official name) are allowed to stay up. Where do you draw the line? USL is a professional league and its clubs all have individual articles. Do we delete those too? SounderBruce 01:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please consider all of the comments above your own. The "Upcoming" articles read as flyers - news - promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reality show. Mark^Dask 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Painting a broad brush is not the way to go about deleting content. The New Mexico United article was structured with a bit of the city's soccer history, another team's proposal to build a stadium, and then the USL announcement and branding (which makes up a third). Even if that last third can be considered promotional (and it's not, given that I wrote it with the use of independent sources), then just about any description of anything on this website is. SounderBruce 01:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? This is absolutely ridiculous. Not only is this a massive break in precedent, but as SounderBruce has pointed out, there are reliable local sources that cover the announcements of these teams in addition to announcements made by the league itself. And this DEFINITELY should have been taken to AfD rather than just redirecting them. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USL Atlanta is as much a consensus as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota United FC (MLS), which move in the opposite directions. Jay eyem (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It is absolutely ridiculous to state it's a massive break in precedent. There are not a sufficient number of reliable sources, local or otherwise, that help the topic meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It IS a massive break in precedent. This is no different than literally every other article about an expansion team that has come before it, and now EVERY expansion team this year has been changed to a redirect? Without even an AfD? That's absolutely ridiculous. So what, we just revert it back to being an actual article once they play their first game? What's the point of that? Jay eyem (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If this team meets WP:GNG we wouldn't be having this discussion. So far, we have exactly zero references that are independent of the subject. None from the local press. All are from the league or team itself. That fails independence. There's a {{refideas}} at the top of the page. Once it's got at least articles with more than a passing mention of the expansion franchise I'll be the first to add them to the article (if someone hasn't beaten me to it). As for other expansion team articles, they can stand or fall on their own. I'm not sure why those discussions are being dragged in here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The team does meet WP:GNG, it's just not reflected in the article yet. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Please restore the redirect so we can develop the article. SportingFlyer talk 00:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And I agree - if you want to redirect or delete, an AfD is the proper forum, not the talk page. SportingFlyer talk 00:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No discussion is needed to create a redirect, and there's a section at the very top of the talk page for sources. I hadn't seen that grow nor had I seen any refs listed. That was the primary reason for my objection. The sources you provided, despite being local, WP:ROUTINE coverage, do help the subject meet GNG. Feel free to add them in whatever way you see fit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Logo

How can I add the logo without opening up the page? When will the redirect come off? Roberto221 (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page because it needs to be discussed here, not there. I'll answer one question at a time.

How can you add the logo, without being able to edit the page. You can't. Wait until it's no longer a redirect and then add it.

That leads directly to your second question, and my first for you. Have you read the discussion above? if you have you'll know that the redirect could be removed when there's enough information to support the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)