Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

< 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 Keep as result of WP:HEY, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

edit
Oakland Zoo (cheering section) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

DELETE SPEEDY DELETE A7. Non-notable school organization. Article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. WP:V. An opinion letter in school paper and a t-shirt sale link do not count. Attempted to speedy-delete as per CSD A7 but user with history of vandalism kept removing tag.— NTAC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd like to withdraw this AfD nomination. Article has been satisfactorily upgraded. NTAC (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's fine, but once you make an AFD nomination it's in the hands of the community, and while you no longer wish to have the article deleted, this AFD must remain open until and unless all delete opinions are withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD nomination should be speedy keep and User:NTAC, the nominator, has clear bias in past edits. The total of his contributions to wikipedia include 1) Vandalization the Wikipedia entry on Walt Harris, former Pitt head football coach, by redirecting its page to Wlat Harris, the spelling of which was a popular insult for this coach[1] by referring to his childhood dyslexia. 2) In light of his Oakland Zoo nomination, an extremely hypocritical defense (and clear overstatements in doing so) of a similar student section article, Nittany Nation, the student section of a one-time rival school of the University of Pittsburgh, in discussions involving two previous nominations for that article's deletion. (Please note that that the Nittany Nation article is now of quality and notability sufficient for wikipedia, article at the time was [[2]]) 3) Through April 6, 2008, User NTAC had no other edits or contributions to wikipedia except for the series of deletion nominations for the Oakland Zoo article. 4) User: NTAC attempted to delete his own USER tag on the original deletion nomination line above and his tag was only restored later by User:Frank Anchor. This behavior boarders on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and I have concerns that User:Titelman (see below) could be his sockpuppet. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Luksuh 17:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 as soon as an admin sees this. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and add a small section to Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball. The organization exists and passes WP:V, however its notability is not etablished with the sources in the article or on this page. Scooter3230 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If it truly passes WP:V, then the sources cited in the actual Wikipedia article should reflect that. An opinion letter in a school rag and a t-shirt sale link do not fit the criteria. As per WP:SOURCES, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Furthermore, the sources mentioned in this discussion are not cited in the Wikipedia article because they add no notable content. NTAC (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Scooter3230; if it can be cited as existant a sentence or two would be appropriate. Somebody might also want to look at the "life" section of the U of P template (Template:University of Pittsburgh), as there are a few articles in this realm. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a highly notable college basketball student section within the overall subject of college basketball. Despite the AFD nomination is not being applied equally, a primary sources tag or expand tag is more appropriate to apply before an AFD. For instance, see also Minnesota's The Barnyard, Ohio State's Buckeye NutHouse, Wisconsin's Grateful Red, Iowa's The Hawk's Nest, Michigan State's Izzone, Penn State's Nittany Nation, Illinois' Orange Krush, Purdue's Paint Crew, Northwestern's Wildside (Northwestern), Duke's Cameron Crazies and Krzyzewskiville, Arizona's Zona zoo. Some of these have passed AFD nominations by the very same editor who nominated the Oakland Zoo page. That said most of those listed are not as notable as the Okland Zoo with the exception of the Cameron Crazies and perhaps Izzone, and at least on the same level as the Orange Krush and bigger than the rest. The Peterson Events Center, thanks to the Oakland Zoo, has been ranked by a survey of the players as the most difficult facility to play in the Big East Conference for multiple years in a row (Sports Illustrated, March 6, 2006). In addition, it is the largest student organization at the University of Pittsburgh and participates in institution and revision of many policies, including seating and student ticket distribution and is mainly responsible for institution of the"Loyalty Points" program for students at the University. These can all be added with primary references given appropriate time to develop the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're not talking about any of those. DarkAudit (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, precedence doesn't denote notability, the reasons I noted above do...national recognition, importance to the school, size, etc. But, I expect all of the student section articles will have AFD tags applied quickly by the original nominator since I'm sure the Oakland Zoo student section page was not singled out either for alternative reasons and I'm sure there was at least a little bit of research into the topic before the article was tagged for "speedy" deletion without first applying an expand tag or primary source tag. Tonight is the final four, so I don't have a large amount of time to research this topic. Here are some references of the section that I will add to the article when I get a chance. Clearly, these references along denote notability (along with the reasons I noted above). Dan Steinberg's Washington Post blog about the Zoo, Pittsburgh Trib-Review: Oakland Zoo has grown into Top Student section, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Pitt's home court advantage], PIttsburgh Post-Gazette:Pitt fans give boost, Post-Gazette: Pitt ticket madness, Post-Gazette: Pitt student ticket problems, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: And the Crowd Goes Wild, Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Oakland Zoo wild about the Panthers and there are others. There is also been controversy surrounding the Zoo logo, which went to US Federal Court: Pittsburgh Post-Gazete: Zoo shirt right dispute, Post-Gazette:Oakland Zoo trademark dispute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Local vendor can keep selling shirts. I found these in about 10 minutes of online searching and, now, have to cut it short because the second game is starting. I didn't even get to search for all the lists in the national media (SI, ESPN, etc) that have listed it among the best sections in the nation. Now, is someone going to say it isn't notable? Clearly, just from this list, there is more than enough notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, the Oakland Zoo was featured on ESPN's Student Spirit Week on January 16, 2007.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Oakland Zoo was also featured in the the book, 100 Years of Pitt Basketball, Sam Sciullo, Sports Publishing LLC, 2005, pages 124-125, ISBN: 1-59670-081-5.
        • You've got a blog and the local papers. Of course the PG is going to cover them. Just as they should. That's not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The blog is from Dan Steinberg, a major professional sports journalist published on-line by the Washington Post who has his own wikipedia entry! The other references are local independent papers of a major American city have EVERYTHING to do with notability. These are two major American newspapers with articles specifically written about the student section. Did you even follow the links? The student section is notable by any standard of notability previous applied. Honestly, either you don't have any clue about college basketball as a subject matter or you are showing your inherent bias as a West Virginia fan (as so tagged on your User page) who is the major rival of the University of Pittsburgh.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It should be obvious my endorsement statement should not be taken too seriously. But as far as the sources are concerned, I do not believe blogs are reliable sources. I also think that the PG's and Trib's coverage are pretty much par for the course for local stories. Local stories. They may be major newspapers, but they're covering stories only a few miles away. By your standards every event that gets more than a couple of mentions in the New York Times or Chicago Tribune would deserve an article. It doesn't work that way. DarkAudit (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then please strike or reverse your endorsement due to your admitted bias. I disagree, blogs of a professional journalists like Dan Steinberg that are published on-line at one of the biggest papers in the world are not meaningless, especially when that blog is at the official site of the of the Washington Post (and is a clear example of notability outside the region, in addition to the noted Sports Illustrated and ESPN profiles). In addition my references provided from the Post-Gazette and Trib-Review are not simply brief mentions. There are full articles in the both specifically about the Oakland Zoo student section. There is no requirement or expectations for major metropolitan newspapers to cover student sections! These aren't small papers of college towns like Lawrence, Lincoln, or State College, PA, and space in these papers is prioritized to the professional sports teams (Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins) and leagues first and then they provide the largest newspaper coverage for West Virginia University and Penn State University in the state of Pennsylvania, not just Pitt alone. Multiple coverage in these papers denotes high notability for the region of Western Pennsylvania. I live in Philadelphia and I've never seen coverage of Temple's, Penn's, Villanova's, Drexel's, LaSalle's or St. Joe's student sections in the Philadelphia Inquirer....nor do they have the national recognition. There is clearly a difference here. There are also multiple articles in both Pittsburgh papers that have implicated important facets in university life directly attributable to policies initiated by the Zoo student section. This is the Zoo making news on its own even outside the sports sections (a clear indication of notability), not that the zoo is profiled just for its existence. For instance, there was widespread coverage of a federal legal case involving the section's logo in these papers. There would be exponential more articles in university associated papers like the "University Times" or the independent student-run "Pitt News" because it is clearly notable within the context of the particular major university for which they are based. But further, the Oakland Zoo has been profiled on national TV multiple times and has been sited by multiple national media sources as one of America's best student sections. There can be no doubt this is one of the major collegiate student section within the subject matter of college basketball. The fair question is whether the college basketball student sections deserve their own pages, however I don't see any other pages having been nominated for deletion so it makes me wonder what the intent was for this nomination. If they other student sections pass notability, certainly the Oakland Zoo does per the major referenced sources I noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not rescinded, but amended. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Keep. Why would anyone want to question the Zoo? It's one of the top student sections in the nation. Ask the opposing players and coaches. Ask Carmelo Anthony, he is one who said so. Dick Vitale, Jay Bilas, Dan Shulman, Bill Raftery, I can go on and on, they all love and have nothing but the highest respect and compliments for the Zoo. The Zoo has helped the team to the best ever stretch in Pitt basketball history since its inception. I could go on, but this is a moot point. This is a silly argument. The Zoo is massively relevant and very powerful. Craigketo (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Craigketo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Merge to Pitt Basketball article. The article fails to present independent, non-opinion-piece reliable sources to verify notability. There's not enough said here that couldn't be said in the basketball article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that attention is drawn to it, the article will be expanded, and now is getting close to a size where it would be too large to merge. The references listed above provide multiple independent reliable sources verifying its notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (down here so it doesn't get buried in the mass of indents) There is nothing wrong with the article's primary author coming into an AfD to defend his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made. "Blog" is a dirty word when it comes to the WP:RS crowd. No matter how credible a blog may be, they see that word and their eyes glaze over. ESPN and SI citations would carry far more weight as references than Pittsburgh papers covering Pittsburgh stories. At least they would with me. DarkAudit (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - asserts notability. Other articles similar to this exist, with no more notability. Grsz11 06:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Oakland Zoo (cheering section) article has undergone major revisions since AFD nomination including the addition of reliable third party references indicating significance/notability. Please take time to reevaluate the article. Proof reading and additions are appreciated.CrazyPaco (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding WP:CANVASS: This AfD has had some off-wiki canvassing - see here: [3]. Just keep an eye on it. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP as per article improvements. Clear notability established. And I'm a PENN STATER. BroadSt_Bully [tlak] 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still concerned that virtually every reference listed is either from the local Pittsburgh papers or affiliated with Pitt itself. if the ESPN or SI citations were linked more directly, it would go further than linking the local article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, the local papers in question are in no way associated with the university. Scooter3230 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think all he's saying is that NATIONAL sources ENHANCE notability - not that local sources don't matter, which is what you seem to be interpreting his statement as. BroadSt_Bully [tlak] 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. A local paper covering local events is what a newspaper is supposed to do. By some editors' standards, any subject covered more than once or twice in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times would be worth an article merely because of the notoriety of those papers. All these references to the PG and the Trib are local papers doing their job, covering events in their city. I would be more convinced if there were more references that weren't coming out of Pittsburgh. DarkAudit (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please actually read the local paper articles as they discuss the student section's relevance on a national level many with interviews from national sports commentators. Also noted are the national coverage by ESPN and Sports Illustrated, and there are very few references from the University itself. Your insistence that references citing multiple feature stories in two major metropolitan newspapers somehow is somehow diminished in notability because they are "local" has no previous precedent in wikipedia that I am aware of. Again, insisting on national notability (although there are multiple Zoo article references that suggest the section is nationally recognized within the realm of American College Basketball) is not a requirement or half of wikipedia would disappear instantly. I will repeat myself because you keep repeating yourself. There are NO requirement or expectations for major metropolitan newspapers to cover student sections! These are not small papers of college towns like Lawrence, Lincoln, or State College, PA, and space in these papers is prioritized to the professional sports teams (Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins) and leagues first. After this, they provide the largest newspaper coverage in Pennsylvania for West Virginia University, Penn State University, Duquesne University and Robert Morris University, not just Pitt alone. Multiple coverage in these papers denotes high notability for, at least, the region of Western Pennsylvania. By comparison, I live in Philadelphia and I've never seen coverage of Temple's, Penn's, Villanova's, Drexel's, LaSalle's or St. Joe's student sections in the Philadelphia Inquirer....nor do they have the national recognition. There is clearly a difference here between your typical student section and the Oakland Zoo. The is the Zoo also made news on its own, outside the sports sections (a clear indication of notability), when it received widespread media coverage in the area (including both Pittsburgh newspapers) of a federal legal case involving the section's logo.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Keep per new modifications Scooter3230 (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that the papers are covering events that are in the same town as the paper. If that's all you're going to cite, then yes, it does diminish notability. The ESPN citation isn't ESPN itself, it's a Pittsburgh paper citing ESPN. Local notability isn't the same as national or international notability. Cite ESPN. Cite SI. Cite something from Philadelphia. DarkAudit (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you site ESPN television broadcasts that features the cheering section? Do you want me to cite a YouTube video of it? The references site newspaper accounts of the broadcasts with quotes from the national ESPN analysts. You are being completely ridiculous. Again, despite the provided evidence, there is NO requirement for national notability. Definitively regional notability is more than provided. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sports Illustrated now directly cited.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:LOCALFAME "arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." Local notability is still nonetheless notability. Most, not all, of the sources used are from the Post Gazette, which is from a major metropolitan area close to the University. The paper itself has nothing to do with the university, it is just printed in the city that the university is located in. The article also cites articles from Champaign, IL and the Washington Post. Frank Anchor Talk (R-OH) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, I would like to also note, that the Post-Gazette and Trib-Review both have individual beat writers covering the major university's sports teams listed above (considered in the district coverage area), but only one student section has been profiled, and profiled repeatedly.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's more than just printed in the same town. It's mission is to cover events in that town. Whether it has any affiliation with the university or not has no relevance. It is my opinion, and I am well within my rights to hold it, is that a local paper covering local events is just that. Local. If a subject aims to national or international significance, then I believe that the sources provided should reflect that. No there is no "requirement" to that end, Just as notability isn't "required" or reliable, verifiable, and independent sources are "required". They are guidelines. They're subject to interpretation. How I interpret the guidelines may or may not match up with how others interpret them. I never said the sources were invalid. I said that there were too few sources that were not either affiliated with the university or were local to Pittsburgh. DarkAudit (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you are allowed your opinion, as am I. Its not the City of Pittsburgh Panthers, but rather the University of Pittsburgh Panthers. Theyre different and the lack of affiliation with the university is more than just relevant. it is crucial. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Obviously I completely disagree with your opinion, which you have every right to have, but the reason I keep responding is that you seem intent on diminishing the validity of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper citations. In regards to local papers, your quote: "too few sources that were not either affiliated with the university or were local to Pittsburgh" does not match WP:LOCALFAME. Your quote asserting "whether it has affiliation with the university or not has no relevance" also contradicts Wikipedia:Independent sources. On a somewhat different topic, I personally don't believe University affiliated newspapers should automatically be discounted as non-credible source, especially in light that they often have independent editorial boards. However, major professional independent metropolitan newspapers definitely increase verifiability for any topic as they determine the "newsworthiness" of a particular story for their region with as much non-bias as is possible for an editorial board comprised of humans beings. That clearly fits within WP:LOCALFAME and Wikipedia:Independent sources. There are now 10 different referenced news articles from the two major Pittsburgh area newspapers (not school papers) that are cited in the Oakland Zoo (cheering section) wikipedia article. These articles specifically discuss various aspects of the student section, including, and most pertinent to our discussion, it's national perception. How there could be a perceived lack of, at least, local notability per WP:LOCALFAME is beyond my understanding. One final point is both papers also have "missions to cover" everything in their districts as well as their "town" because they have wide circulation outside the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County limits. This is why there is local TV, radio and newspaper coverage of West Virginia University sports as well, as that school falls within the Pittsburgh DMA. I do not want to go down a school rival pathway, especially since you are a West Virginia fan, so with that said, WVU has a substantial reputation for its student section in the world of college athletics, and if it had a student section article on its own, I would wholeheartedly support its existence.CrazyPaco (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The affiliation (or not) with the university was not relevant to why I think there are too many local sources, to the exclusion of more national sources. I was not calling their independence into question. I do not take issue with the school's paper as a source, either. They run stories about the Zoo, but they aren't part of the zoo. DarkAudit (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 per nom Titelman (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Titelman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment possible Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The user Titelman has no other wikipedia contributions other than the above comment. The user name suggests a deliberate misspelling of a well known University of Pittsburgh radio talk show call-in fan/message board handle indicative of a possible university rival using deception. In an interesting coincidence, the acronym NTAC is also the name of a group of well known Pitt sports fans at one time common to a specific Pitt sports message board. CrazyPaco (talk)

Strong Keep i still don't understand how this isn't notable or needs to be deleted. cameron crazies is an article, why can't this be? whoever nominated this is an idiot Superbowlbound (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are confused with sources- news articles: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/basketball/p/panthers.htm http://pittsburghpanthers.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/012006aag.html

blog: http://pittoaklandzoo.blogspot.com/ facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200205870

Keep it civil. About.com and facebook are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (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/Oakland_Zoo_(cheering_section)&oldid=1138177229"
  NODES
admin 1
COMMUNITY 1
INTERN 3
Note 16
Project 1
Verify 2