Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napier Mavericks


 * 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. The argument that as they are a member of BUAFL was not met with enthusiasm in this AfD, or the one where the discussion took place. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Napier Mavericks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable on their own campus never mind further afield. This doesn't appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. Google returns nothing beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. Ignoring that almost five years have produced two sentences, an infobox, and a four row table that is two years out of date, the article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of material on the team, it looks unlikely that the article could either be referenced or expanded. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Pit-yacker (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to meet our notability standards. Pfainuk talk 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable (as per most British uni teams) article. It is also unreferenced and, due to lack of independent sources, would probably stay that way. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  14:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable as a full, active member of BUAFL. See the extended discussion at Articles for deletion/Derby Braves. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 30 June 2010 (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.