Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England 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. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  19:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

New England Football League

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No discussion in detail by reliable sources outside the area of this league as is required by ORG John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The league is detailed in this source but only briefly mentioned in the page's other references. The NEFL is "the largest of the two semipro leagues in the region". Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong keep - Worse pages are kept for much less, which is why I have re-created this page.  The entry is well sources with more than just the league's webpage.  I built it out beyond what the last version, deleted years ago, had been.  A number of pages link here and I have been adding teams to the towns they are in.  At this point, the teams don't have pages, but teams in other leagues do.  I believe there is a need for this page, which I how I got here.  I was trying to learn more about Odin Lloyd, Aaron Hernandez, and Lloyd's murder.  Within the category of semi-pro, other teams have entries and so do other leagues.  The last time it was deleted because it wasn't notable enough and I think it is pretty notable (and I don't even like football). --LibraryGurl (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

*Delete: I'm unmoved by LibraryGurl's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: a putative "need" for the page or a desire to learn more about Aaron Hernandez (shouldn't his own page be the starting place for that?) aren't part of any notability criteria. Only one source stands out as a recognized reliable source against the chaff of small town weeklies and local news aggregator websites: the Boston Globe cites. Yet the GNG requires multiple sources, and the Globe isn't enough to sustain an article.   Ravenswing   06:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep following Rob's source. While he's mistaken in stating that local coverage from non-reliable sources can make up the difference in meeting the GNG -- 0+0=0 -- the Union-Leader is New Hampshire's largest newspaper, it certainly meets the IRS standard, and it discusses the subject in detail.  That makes multiple sources.   Ravenswing   16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this is not what I said. In my searching, I found many local newspapers that constitute reliable local coverage. I wasn't suggesting that non-reliable sources (blogs, etc.) mean anything. But thanks for the info about the Union-Leader, I had no idea. Removing the weak from my "vote". ~ RobTalk 16:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There's been a discussion of Semi-Pro football here that may be helpful. Sometimes we keep semi-pro articles, sometimes not.  The keep/delete decision in the past has always seemed to come down to the general notability guideline and then support for notability normally just falls apart as it does here. Of course, there are exceptions but those tend to be quite clear.  As for the "need" of the article, see WP:NEED for an essay about how "need" is not the measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to Neutral for now--don't have time to review the changes in the article but I trust the other editor's involved. If I get time I'll review again.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. The Boston Globe coverage is significant. There are plenty of sources at the more local/regional level, such as, if you care to look for them. Keep in mind that we should probably be considering articles about the individual teams as helping to establish notability of the whole, since we aren't going to create individual team articles (most likely). Lots of local/regional coverage and multiple articles in a nationally recognized source (Boston Globe) is enough to meet GNG, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs a lot of improvement. In particular, referencing needs to be added for all the factual information that is presented in the tables. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2016 (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.