Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas Impact


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Arkansas Impact

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor league basketball team that operated for one season. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources in article. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) fails to find any additional sources. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources.—[Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment my basic WP:BEFORE (Google) brought up:   (paywalled) and at least the following from Arkansas Online (paywalled) which while likely routine shows the team was consistently covered by local media in their season of operation: ( (paywalled)      ) and I stopped there. I see no problem with keeping it, but also am not going to argue too hard on its behalf. SportingFlyer  talk  11:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that. Per GNG, articles from the same publisher i.e. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette count as a single source for notability purposes. I generally consider SBNation to be an amateur blog, the exception being a few of their high-profile, veteran writers. The Arkansas Business source could be a trivial mention (unclear without access), and a lot of local/regional "business" papers tend to be PR. I still think more sources are needed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * there's an argument to be made a sports team which obtains reliable and ongoing coverage in a the state's newspaper of record should count toward notability reasons, but I don't disagree with you - I'm just showing the team was reliably covered, and the coverage easily found for others to respond to, given the nature of the nomination. I'm probably a "weak keep". SportingFlyer  talk  22:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (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.