Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid Continental 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mid Continental Football League

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Semi-professional league of questionable notability. Google News search on the name brings back no results. Very little coverage found in in indepedent publications. Major contributor appears to have a significant conflict of interest. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Question If this page is deleted, should not also we delete 2008 Mid Continental Football League season, or will it require its own AFD? Or could it be speedied?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep A quick and dirty Google search turns up two possible gbooks hits (swamped by a bunch of Wikipedia printouts), and this indicates possible Sports Illustrated coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That SI page appears to primarily a page of links to YouTube videos and a wiki article - none of them appear to have been uploaded/created by Sports Illustrated, however. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. But further Googling turned up a few newspaper stories, I think this is notable enough for inclusion. Changed to keep from weak. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This one and this one appear to have been from a reader's blog, not from a staff writer - here's the author's Blogger profile, and this page at the paper shows that they run reader submissions - the blog in questioned ended three years ago, so it's apparently no longer indexed on the site's search function. The ThisWeek article is more about a player and team - the only mention of the league is very fleeting. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent sources. The league may be notable, but without sources to support that notability I have to go with exclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Who keeps wanting to delete these semi pro pages?! They are REAL, they exist! They have sources and cane be found on a google search, please stop this. Independent sources are listed.
 * What independent sources are you referring to? The article has two external links to primary sources - the league website and message board. You only added a link to semiprofootball.org last night, and that's nothing more than a minor list from a related site. You have yet to show any significant coverage from independent sources. The problem is we understand the league exists, but there is nothing to be found that shows it to be notable enough to need an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages ad. If there were articles about the league accomplishing things over and above (or even up to the level of) other leagues with real coverage, or showing it has a notable past, we would welcome the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I'm saying this in an AFD... but Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING. Just because it exists does not mean it deserves an article.  My fingernail exists, it doesn't get an article.  However, an article on fingernails is okay.  While I'm sure that the league is more notable than my fingernail, it isn't nearly enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia.  Please try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep I see the arguments on both sides, but the I don't find the arguments to delete particularly convincing. -Drdisque (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments Just came back to visit this page and can't beleive that there are people calling for keep. Just to point out all the violations, read the list below. In short, we're talking policy and major guideline violations here folks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Several counts of violation of WP:GROUP including the following: Primary Criteria (Depth of coverage, Audience, and independence of sources); Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations (Non-commercial organizations)
 * 2) Multiple violations of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (Primary research and Journalism); Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (Advocacy, Self-promotion, and borderline Advertising); Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and Wikipedia is not a directory (A complete exposition of all possible details).
 * 3) Major violations of WP:OR:  Citing oneself ("...this policy does prohibit experts from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources.");
 * 4) What about WP:RS the only sources cited are the organization's website (which, incidentally is down at the moment) and a discussion board--in other words, it's not just that the page contains original research (above), it is the only information contained!
 * 5) Don't forget WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject" come to mind.
 * 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.