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.
Daniel (
talk) 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a non-notable amateur football league. As such, it fails
WP:ORG because this organization does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. The only thing I found was
WP:ROUTINE coverage in local newspapers. Tavix |
Talk 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I found some information that may be good to include in an article on semi-pro football in general, but nothing specifically about the notability of this particular league.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 04:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per rationales above of nominator Tavix and Paulmcdonald: fails to satisfy
WP:NORG and
WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 14:17, 27 January 2015 (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.
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.
Daniel (
talk) 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a non-notable amateur football league. As such, it fails
WP:ORG because this organization does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. The only thing I found was
WP:ROUTINE coverage in local newspapers. Tavix |
Talk 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I found some information that may be good to include in an article on semi-pro football in general, but nothing specifically about the notability of this particular league.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 04:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per rationales above of nominator Tavix and Paulmcdonald: fails to satisfy
WP:NORG and
WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 14:17, 27 January 2015 (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.