Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Phantoms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Phantoms

[edit]

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

Orlando Phantoms (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)

Non-notable amateur football team. League isn't even notable enough for an article, so can't redirect. No independent sourcing located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changed to keep. The 2-part source from CBL62 and the source posted by Randy Kryn are sufficient to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Others voting delete may know more about this league's lack of notability (I am not familiar with it myself), but the Phantoms seem to have received some SIGCOV. E.g., this, this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, meets WP:GNG per Cbl62's sources as well as many others available on any search engine, particularly around Kyle Farnsworth's many years playing for the team (for example, see this Sporting News story). Well sourced articles about semi-pro teams, especially ones which win so many championships in their leagues, deserve an article as much as any pro teams. BTW, Wikipedia is a semi-pro encyclopedia. Go Phantoms! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find the sources provided thus far to be enough to establish notability.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Port Charlotte Sun Yes Yes No The source primarily discusses the Florida Veterans, only passing mentions of the Phantoms. ✘ No
Orlando Sentinel part 1, part 2 No As an interview it is a primary source and does not count towards notability. Reads like a regurgitation of the Phantom's self-description. No original independent opinion, analysis, or investigation is offered by the source. Yes Yes ✘ No
Sporting News No The limited info about the team is all provided directly by the Phantom's owner. Yes ? The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer in-depth detail. Is primarily about Kyle Farnsworth. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Please ping me if better sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The credibility of this chart is undermined given the assertion that a 26-paragraph, multi-column feature story focused entirely on the team does not count toward GNG. It has some quotes, like any well-written feature story, but it is not simply an interview; indeed, less than a third of the massive content consists of quotes. Cbl62 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to find anything from that source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This source offers none of that and simply repeats what The Phantoms describe themselves as. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is not accurate to assert that the article from Sporting News (a major national player) only mentions the Phantoms briefly. To the contrary, there is a long passage that is all about the Phantoms and doesn't even mention Farnsworth:

Torres has owned and managed the Phantoms since 2011. He first went to an FFA practice that year at the request of a friend, and there were players smoking cigarettes on the sideline. Torres played football in high school and a little bit in arena and semi-pro leagues after that, and just wanted to help somebody. Even though the players are unpaid, Torres said the organizations are in the red every year. "I’m happy helping people get somewhere,” Torres said. “I’ll never remember how much money I had. But I'll remember the people." Torres took the organization and built it into much more. There are three types of players it serves — those looking to get into college, those looking to play in arena leagues, Canada or even the NFL, and those who just want to see if they can play football at a competitive level.

Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 26-paragraph feature story is a trivial mention? Might as well shut down Wikipedia, as millions of pages have just become null and void. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 26-paragraph story also is not counted as a GNG source in your chart, which is what I was referring to. As for sources, there are many more than previously mentioned when binging "Kyle Farnsworth" and "Orlando Phantoms", including out of CBS in Detroit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FormalDude -- You lose all credibility when you claim that a 26-paragraph article from a major media outlet focused entirely on the Phantoms (and consisting of < 33% quotes) is just "an interview" and thus not independent. As for the Sporting News piece, it is a closer call, but it is simply not accurate to assert, as you did, that this is only a brief mention. There is, in fact, some depth to the coverage of the team: it (i) identifies the team's owner and (ii) discusses his background in football, (iii) discusses the length of his ownership, (iv) discusses the unpaid status of players, (v) provides the team's financial results (in the red every year), and (vi) reviews the various types of players attracted to the team and their motivations. Cbl62 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just because it's an interview, it's because the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content like:

According to the mission of the Orlando Phantoms, their goal is to develop players who can go abroad to play professionally in the United States, while the team encourages its members to obtain a degree, focus on their families and support each other.

I will admit that the SIGCOV of the Sporting News piece is up for debate, but so is its independence. I've adjusted my source assessment table accordingly. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "puff piece" is a full feature interview in a major newspaper and independent of the team. Please adjust your chart accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content I still haven't yet voted "keep" or "delete" (as this is a close call on GNG), but your continuing efforts to throw out a 26-paragraph feature story from an independent, reliable source are beyond a stretch. If this were mere regurgitation of a team's press release, you would have a point, but that's not what this is. The article reveals that the author conducted multiple interviews with management and players and then wrote the story distilled from all of the interviews and his own independent synthesis of the facts. That is what sports journalism is all about. The fact that the article delves into some inspirational elements (rehabilitation of players on probation, surviving violent incidents, immigrants and working class guys playing for love of the game) shows the depth of coverage and does not undercut the independence of the source. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see "independent synthesis of the facts" in the Sentinel article. Can you point to any part that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article on its face reflects that the author interviewed numerous players and team officials to collect as much information about the team. He then wrote a 26-paragraph, two-page feature story about the team. Less than one-third of the article consists of direct quotes from team officials. The remainder consists of the author's synthesis of the facts that he collected during his interviews and research. That's the nature of reporting -- (i) go out and find/collect facts, (ii) decide which facts are significant to your story, and (iii) weave facts together in a compelling or interesting narrative to tell the story. That's what synthesis and reporting are all about. The opposite would be a situation where the writer simply repeats/regurgitates a pre-prepared or canned press release or other piece written by the team -- that's not what this is. Am I missing something? Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems like you're saying no matter how much content is non-independent, it doesn't matter because it was put together by a reliable journalist. That is not the case, a source has to be independent AND reliable to count towards notability.
        You seem to be evading my simple request to provide any part of the source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms or their staff. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more opinions since there is such a difference of opinion regarding these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WFTV piece appears to be SIGCOV in a reliable source. Not so much on the other two. If I was forced to decide, I'd lean toward keeping based on all the sources found. Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: That type of targeted notification seems like blatant canvasing to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to meet all the criteria of WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? There's four possibilities mentioned as being appropriate notifications for users: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article – nope; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) – I can't recall scope creep having been involved in related discussions – and he himself stated in response to your notification "I don't know much ... about sports in general"; Editors known for expertise in the field – clearly not per his aforementioned reply; and Editors who have asked to be kept informed – I don't think he's asked to be informed about these discussions, let me know if I'm wrong. Also note that I was recently accused of CANVASSING for notifying actually relevant users who clearly met at least three of the four criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off those possibilities are just common examples, they are not the only scenarios that editors are permitted to give talk page notifications. In the chart in the next section it says that a notification is appropriate if its scale is a limited posting, the message is neutral, the audience is non-partisan, and the transparency is open. I've met those four criteria.
I would also say it meets the two examples of editors who participated in related topics and editors known for expertise in their field, as Scope creep has participated in numerous discussions about organizations and has a lot of knowledge about the policies surrounding them, so I thought they may have valuable feedback. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't make sense because WP:ORG explicitly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of ... sports teams." Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't know that. I can see the cause for concern, but I assure you I had no intentions of canvassing. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As I see it, this hinges on the usability of the lengthy sentinel source. There are bad arguments on both sides about it; length alone does not make a reliable source usable, it does need to have independent content; but conversely, the presence of quotes and attributed content does not imply that independent content does not also exist. Additional opinions on all the sources, but the Sentinel source in particular, would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the relisting comment. In the lengthy Sentinel source, I see at the very minimum, 200+ words of SIGCOV about the team. The journalist wrote a secondary synthesis of the interviews as a multi-paragraph summary at the start of the article that includes the player's pasts and expectations, in the context of their membership of the team, with some explanation of the team. These are neither individually attributed within the summary nor attributed to any team representative, but rather it is a statement in the voice of the journalist about the players based on several interviews. There's also secondary information on the monetary requirements/donations to the team.
Beyond that, I see several non-attributed statements interwoven with interviews of members of the team. Regardless of how "puffy" the piece sounds, as is very common for sports journalism, it's not churnalism, as such, unless we have a reason to doubt the publication or the journalist, such non-attributed statements are SIGCOV as well, as we can expect a level of fact-checking. This would push us well above 300 words of SIGCOV on the team, and even more if we count such coverage of individual team members.
My evaluation is that the source provides SIGCOV of the subject at a standard GNG level. —siroχo 22:25, 22 September 2023 (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/Orlando_Phantoms&oldid=1177968973"