Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yorkshire Amateur 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, even after disregarding all the "keep as per..." voting which helped nobody. This isn't a vote and just because this decision tallies with the voters doesn't mean I counted heads. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

South Yorkshire Amateur League

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable amateur league. I asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football but got no particular consensus there. Is every league at every level notable? My feeling is no. Corvus cornix 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom.  There is no proof of notability.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 18:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete amateur sports is usually non-notable by definition, and certainly this article has nothing suggesting it to be some kind of exception. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This league is part of the football pyramid system, which is the league structure in England which leads up to the Premier League. There are articles about leagues all the way down to level 24 of the pyramid, so to decide that a level 16 league should be deleted seems pretty arbitrary. It makes sense to keep articles about the entire league structure, rather than picking a random cut-off point. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because there are less-notable ones that haven't (yet) been deleted doesn't mean this one stays. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying it should be kept because other league articles exists, it should be kept as part of the football league structure in England, having an arbitrary cut-off point is wrong, it should be all or nothing. It's a single structure made up of a large number of leagues. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally the way it goes is that professional teams/players are notable, anything under that are not. Exceptions are the Olympics and certain very high-level college teams (example: Penn State Nittany Lions). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If its all or nothing, I would take the nothing option. Just reference the minor, not notable leagues in the main article.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm inclined to go with Gasheadsteve. Considered in the context of the whole league pyramid system, it seems fair to keep it. Marcus22 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Leagues in English football league system are not notable because they've been blue-linked in that article. They should be black-linked unless they meet wp:sport.--victor falk 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gasheadsteve. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Gasheadsteve. Simon KHFC 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gasheadsteve. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The South Yorkshire Amateur League is a Saturday league, not a Sunday league (which are the pub league types). Convention thus far has been to include all Saturday leagues as long as they have verifiability, which this league does.  If you want to campaign against the inclusion of lower-level Saturday leagues, that conversation extends beyond this AfD. --Balerion 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gasheadsteve and Balerion. Ref (chew) (do) 21:08, 2 November 2007 (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.