Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridiron Developmental Football 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 Keep.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Gridiron Developmental Football League

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor semi-pro football league that lacks significant coverage. There is minor coverage about "a game was played", mentions that the team exists or human interest stories about a local player chasing a dream, but nothing of real substance. A recently added source from Sports Illustrated gives it brief coverage, but I don't think it's sufficient. Notability tags keep getting removed by editors who don't add secondary or third party sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep this feels akin to a third-division or fourth-division soccer league in Europe. While the teams and players aren't notable, the leagues generally are.   should be sufficient as a reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd almost agree, if the league were actually a significant part of the article. Instead, the article is little more than a list of different leagues and an obligatory paragraph or two about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- non notable, per available sources. This content belongs on the league's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed a bunch of non-notable and un-sourced content from this page. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep generally we find that leagues such as this end up with enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Probably going to be a stub for its entire life, but stub articles are okay.  Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is confusing stub with non-notable, so please don't make that assumption. Where is this coverage? It doesn't matter what we "generally find", it matters what coverage THIS league has received. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You have to click on the "news" links and do a little web search because they are not yet in the article. Links:  LNP News 'New-Look Lightning ; Minor League Football Team Opens Home Season Next Saturday At Manheim Township Athletic Complex; US Fed News Service Ignite the Torch Aims to Motivate Teens to Choose Better Future; LNP News Lightning Strike; LNP News Piranha Win Division; New York Times This Is House; NAPTown Buzz Indianapolis Tornados A Game Away From National Title; Sports Illustrated When it comes to football D-leagues, resources are crucial, but locality may be the real key''  --Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought your bad faith was simply poor wording, but now you've doubled- down on it. Thanks for the lesson about how to click a link. In the last decade, I never learned how to do that. Well, at least that's how you are acting. So I'll return the favor and educate you, since you apparently struggle with what "significant coverage" is. Saying that a game was played isn't coverage about this topic. It's a mention, which is almost all of what LNP coverage was. I can't view the entire article from "Fed News", but the part that is viisible indicates that the league itself isn't getting significant coverage, but more mentions. Even if we called the "Naptown Buzz" a reliable source, the GDFL is merely mentioned. The NYT article is about a man, who happens to play in the GDFL. It hardly covers the league. In fact, one of the things most telling is "... must toil at day jobs while indulging their football dreams in obscurity.". Obscurity indeed. So thanks for the education about clicking links. I hope I've held you identify what significant coverage is, because based on wehat you put forth as "evidence", you apparently needed some help understanding it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I take offense to your accusation of bad faith. A lot of people do not complete the steps in WP:BEFORE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no financial requirement on players that I can find for notability of a sports league. This starting to sound an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Take offense if you want. When you said I was consing stub with notability and I stated I wasn't, you came back with more nonsense. Who is talking about financial requirement? What are you talking about? I don't know and I'm starting to question if you know. I haven't said a single word about financial status. Oh wait... you're one of those people who need the obvious explained. That quote was about OBSCURITY.... notice how I even repeated "obscurity" indeed? That was to help editors like yourself. I apologize for assuming you could get that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You posted "one of the things most telling is "... must toil at day jobs while indulging their football dreams in obscurity." -- you are in essence saying that the league isn't notable because the players don't get paid enough money.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you can't understand the context. I just clearly told you that the quote was about obscurity. You've chosen to ignore that clear statement and continue on with your false statement. I said nothing about finances, you simply made that up. Also noting that you've ignored addressing the fact that you are trying to spin mere mentions into "significant coverage and instead chose to contradict something I didn't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I quoted you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You quoted PART of it and completely ignored the context or the follow up clarification. Let's see if I can put this in language plain enough for you to understand. I do not claim that there is a financial requirement for notability. Is that clear enough? I mean I guess I could break out the crayons.... Niteshift36 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remove the personal comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Paul, when you start making baseless allegations about what editors allegedly didn't do BEFORE and then misrepresent what they said, you may find that they stop indulging your faux civility. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - A reminder. Personal attacks and incivility do not affect the likelihood of an article being kept or deleted.  The closer normally ignores them, and bases the close on strength of arguments.  So insulting the other editor is not the way to get what you want, although it may be a way to get blocked.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert, I know how AfD's work. And suggesting a picture to an editor who apparently doesn't understand something that is plainly worded is a pretty weak "personal attack" Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is accurate, A weak personal attack is still wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I put "personal attack" in quotes because it truly isn't one. Stop fabricating things and you probably won't need the picture drawn. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA where it states "Comment on content, not on the contributor" -- and again please remove the personal comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. That SI source is brief but substantive, and the league has gotten attention from time to time when a player has overcome the odds and made it to the NFL, notably Delvin Breaux. Enough substantive interest to warrant an appropriately succinct article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Could really do with some more sources, but as others have said, a D league at this level would seem to qualify. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos line of reasoning. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - If a player plays in this league and the NFL, there is encyclopedic value to having an article about this league to explain their career. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Arxiloxos sums it up quite well. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2017 (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.