Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970 Salvadoran Primera División


 * 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 soft delete. There is no clear consensus on notability either in terms of numbers or arguments, and no consensus for moving to draft space. This would normally tend to a no consensus result, and the article kept. However, there is a stronger, albeit conditional, argument for lack of notability in addition to the argument indicating lack of in-depth reliable sources, therefore I am giving this a soft delete where on request the article can be undeleted and moved into Draft space in order to be worked on. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1970 Salvadoran Primera División

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:NOTDONE, subject its self is notable.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per . Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you please explain how that essay is relevant here? It seems like it is discussing article improvement rather than decisions about whether to delete an article or not. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  21:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. I disagree that the subject is inherently notable; in fact, neither of the two keep comments have explained why this subject is supposed to be notable. The article is incomplete and not at all suitable for mainspace. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.