Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana Football Alliance


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ due to lack of participation. This can be renominated immediately if so desired (ping User:Let'srun). Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

North Louisiana Football Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject lacks the needed independent, in depth secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Most of the current sources merely are from the league website or are quoting press releases and are not in any way independent. Let&#39;srun (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist since I gather there is at least one unbolded Keep vote here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, American football, Arkansas, Louisiana,  and Texas. Let&#39;srun (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LetsRun, do you have a semi-pro league that you feel is being threatened by the North Louisiana Football Alliance. I ask because im wondering how, out of the 74,919,671 wiki articles did YOU decide this one article should be deleted? Leave the NLFA wiki page alone. 2601:3C8:C000:62B0:3AA:C84C:624:E35 (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Please explain? Your claim reads more like your personal opinion and lacks facts. You stated that each source was taken from the league website when it clearly came from independent news sources. Also, take note that any and all non-creditable news sources were removed from the article months ago. So if regional newspapers and the local news aren't creditable news sources, nearly half the articles on Wikipedia should be removed. If it reads that bad, help improve it rather than delete it. 152.132.9.72 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good evening, @Let'srun
 * I'm just getting a chance to look at my notifications and I noticed that you tagged my article for deletion. I'm curious to know why you felt the need to randomly nominate an article I've worked almost 2 years on to maintain (along with the help of other creditable editors might I add) for deletion.
 * If the "subject lacked the needed independent coverage" as you claim, why didn't you make the necessary additions to it like everyone else who came across the article?
 * Did you even do any research to support your claim? Or do you just like picking random articles to nominate for deletion because you don't agree with the subject material or how it's written?
 * Since I've been a wiki editor I've always researched and provided citations for the material included, and if the source goes against wiki guidelines there has been no issues with wiki BOTS making the proper changes.
 * So I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your tag and leave my articles alone please. Thank you in advance. DLabS3 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that it can be upsetting for a article of yours to be nominated at AfD, but I always look to see if there is coverage for a subject via a WP:BEFORE check, and unfortunately here I couldn't find much WP:SIGCOV with which to add. Here is the source analysis I have for this article based off of the sources listed here. #2 is a profile about the founder and has independence concerns. #3 is the same as the first source reposted, #4 is not WP:SIGCOV, #5 is not WP:SIGCOV as a single paragraph that appears to be directly reposted from the league website, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #14 are all league press releases and are not independent of the source. The only source that may possibly qualify for WP:GNG is #13, but I am not certain about the reliability of the source.
 * I also never said "that each source was taken from the league website". I only said that most of them are, which I maintain is accurate. Let&#39;srun (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.