Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Women's Baseball 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. After extended time for discussion, the trend towards preferring to keep this article is now clear. bd2412 T 03:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

North American Women's Baseball League

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No longer notable: a metropolitan dues-paying baseball club that has not played a game in 9 years. Both independent baseball clubs that sponsored it no longer exist. Contact pages are inoperative. No citations, nor will there ever be. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Amateur local leagues are not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  M h hossein   talk 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary; it doesn't matter whether it no longer exists. There are sources, including Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball, Chasing Baseball: Our Obsession with Its History, Numbers, People and Places , A Game of Their Own: Voices of Contemporary Women in Baseball , and some newspaper articles, including the Boston Globe, especially . I have not yet checked academic and other journals. If it is not kept, it should be merged to an article about women's baseball. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all behind pay walls so i can't verify if they mention this league in detail or it's just listed in some chart of amateur women's leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Google Books search results are not behind paywalls! Per WP:PAYWALL, subscription sources can be used to establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is/was a women's baseball movement; it stemmed from the wartime women's league; its goal was to get more women and girls playing baseball (not softball); and some of the NAWBL people viewed their league as an important piece of that movement. During the NAWBL, more women in the area played baseball; afterwards, less, unless they found somewhere else to do it.  Nine years later, I don't see evidence that the NAWBL led to anything, except in individual players' lives.  I have run into two NAWBL players in the last few years when they came to a summer league to scout on behalf of Major League Baseball.  Citations at this point ought not just prove that the NAWBL existed, but show how it was an evolution and that the evolution continued, as more than such personal anecdotes.  Absent that, I think that notability of a private club can expire.  Rebecca, are you voting on the page, or on the movement?  Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This page, which is what the AfD is about. Some of the sources I linked above do indeed show how the NAWBL was connected to earlier and other contemporary leagues. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. 3 articles about NAWLP in the Boston Globe and more in smaller newspapers should be enough to establish notability. Also, its inclusion in 3 books cited by RebeccaGreen above.  Also, Notability is not temporary, so doubts about its present-day impact are irrelevant to its notability at the time it existed.  PS. I have added 2 citations in the article now. Krubo (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject has sufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (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.