Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Little League


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Beverly Little League

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just because it's the oldest Little League baseball organization in Massachusetts does not mean inherent notability. It's boosterism and fails WP:N. Jrcla2 talk 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep around 75 news articles disagree that it fails WP:N. Beverly Little League + Massachusetts, 12 results Ikip (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And about 75% of them seem to be from the The Salem News, 32 Dunham Road, Beverly, MA 01915 Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based on news coverage of this notable fact.  D r e a m Focus  01:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Being the oldest Little League organization in Massachusetts is no more notable than being the oldest Rotary Club or the oldest YMCA. In Wikipedia, this is not notable at all; it is a (debatably) interesting fact that is referred to as  "trivia".  This is, as the nominator says, boosterism.  And it's rather selfish boosterism at that, an excuse to say that nine boys who happen to play for (drum roll) "the first Little League in Massachusetts" should get recognition that their teammates (or players anywhere else) would not.  It would be ridiculous in the extreme to have have an article about the oldest Little League program in each state.  Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see nothing in the article that amounts to a good claim of notability, and Google News didn't help. Would change my mind if new information were provided. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. What coverage there is is extremely local. Even though it may be the oldest little league it does not appear that this fact has been picked up by anyone outside the area. We don't judge whether something is notable - the coverage does. Quantpole (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (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.