Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFL New York/Hartford


 * 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) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

UFL New York/Hartford
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Until firm details are announced, pages for individual teams of a proposed league do not seem to be viable. The only information already appears in the United Football League (2008) page and all seems to be sourced from the league website. This raises notability concerns in addition to those of speculation. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sources from the teams from ESPN, the league has a tv deal with Versus, there other articles for the teams . There seems to be enough coverage out there to show that these are the four teams that will take to the field, if the league does play.  If the league never plays a down, the articles can be merged into the main league article.  Patken4 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Patken4 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions.
 * Keep Them playing this season has been reported numerous times.-- Giants27 T/  C  21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Patken4. I have added some other sources (namely a CBS article mentioning the coaches of all these teams) to the main UFL article which can be used here.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the guys above. If you see a problem with the article just improve them, don't delete them.  And you only marked 3 of the 4 UFL team article why's this.  What's the point of having 1 of them if you're not going to have all of them.  Standleylake40 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources provided on the articles and those presented above help to allay any crystalballing and notability concerns. It seems more likely that the league will go ahead than not and, like Patken said, if the league never does get off the ground these articles can be merged later. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  09:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here to Keep, can we get this confirmed by an admin?J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (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.