Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior varsity team

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 merge to Varsity team. Sources exist, which is a problem with millions of schools having JV teams and newspapers.com indexing them. But sources haven't been established for notability independent of the broader concept. Star Mississippi 13:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junior varsity team

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

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

Broad concept that doesn't seem to be broken down and discussed by any reliable source. One citation in the whole article. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Baseball, Basketball, and United States of America. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to varsity team, where it is mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Junior varsity seems like a major concept to me – there has to be coverage of this somewhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a book (more reputable than a bloggy site). —Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST.

A quick search for sources finds:

PK-WIKI (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PK-WIKI (it's helpful to sign your posts if you remember), I am well aware of WP:NEXIST, but as I explained, this didn't appear to apply based on my searches. Now that sources have been provided, I would still argue that this doesn't need to be its own article; rather, it would make sense to have this explained within varsity team, while specific sports (college baseball, American football, etc.) can have their own articles if sourcing is sufficient. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now to Varsity team, with no prejudice towards its recreation at a later time. The article subject is notable, but it generally exists in relationship with varsity sports in the United States looking at both the above sources and from my own search (I'm only looking at this from an American perspective, to be clear). I could see a world where an editor would take the plethora of coverage about JV sports in the US and draw out a larger article, but this current one would be better served with merging information into the target for now. I'd recommend that it should be a sub-section of "varsity sports". Nomader (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So many pages link here that we really need to keep it as a redirect, at least. It may be possible to write an independent article about this topic, but I think this concept would make the most sense if discussed alongside varsity sports. There are surely hundreds of sources about individual JV teams, JV competitions, etc, but weaving that information into a coherent article could be challenging. Zagalejo (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 'Varsity team', leaving the redirect. However, that article itself is a mess, and seems to overlap various articles listed at Varsity. (Having seen that mess, I must keep reminding myself that I have other things I am supposed to be working on.) - Donald Albury 11:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable subject matter, sources that exist and have been shown in this discussion need to be incorporated in the article. AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is most certainly notable. Newspapers.com brings up over 2,000,000 results for "junior varsity," and there's even whole books making comparisons between varsity and JV [1]. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Newspapers.com *does* bring over millions of articles. But after spotchecking just a couple dozen of them, it's all stuff like this ([2]), just schedules and random notes about how games went -- no actual coverage of the topic. And the book that you link to (which I found as well) actually discusses the subject of the fitness of junior varsity athletes in the context of varsity ones! Clearly they exist as a topic together and this redirect should be allowed to be recreated without prejudice, but I think it makes a ton of sense for the subjects to be merged together (as they exist in relation to each other). Nomader (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the fact that it is used millions and millions of times clearly shows it is a major concept and should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage about the term "jv" itself: [3] (p2) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But again, these all discuss the subject in the context of... varsity sports and the resources given to both of them. A merge makes so much sense here -- a well-sourced article would be able to discuss the different levels of varsity sports (of which JV is one of them clearly based on the sources you have given here) and would be able to discuss it in context appropriately. Nomader (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The sources do not outweigh the fact that Varsity team is quite short and this can easily be merged there to better show the context of how these sports work, as most of what defines junior varsity is simply complementary to varsity. Even if a notable concept, per WP:NOPAGE, there is no need for a separate article here for closely related terms. The length of the article is misleading, being largely unsourced original research. Reywas92^Talk 13:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep and Merge. Remember to base judgments on souces and policy guidelines, not on whether or not you believe the subject is "worthy" (or "unworthy").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PK-WIKI's listed sources. Clearly demonstrate notability and in-depth analysis on the topic. Skipple ☎ 04:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, because where length is not a concern readers are better served by a coherent summary at a single page than partially redundant content in multiple places. Yes, the concept is notable; but the vast majority of content that crops up in a search is about specific teams, which doesn't belong here; indeed using them would likely be original research. What coverage there is of the concept is easily handled, and more coherently handled, at Varsity team. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:12, 16 April 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.