Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New United States 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. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New United States Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this article should be deleted for several reasons. The first reason is that it relies mainly on one source, the original league website, which doesn't even exist as it did before. The league website used to have numerous pages with related information, but now it is just a single page with a message about the league's future. There are also many sections on the page which cite no references at all. I think that the current information about the new league should be included on the page for the original United States Football League. Once there is sufficient information about the new league I think it would be appropriate to then create a new article. C Wiki S (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It needs some work, but poor sourcing is not grounds for deletion of an entire article. RF23 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, with comment. Though I will not object if there is a consensus for deletion, there is a little bit information on the league out there in reputable news Web sites, even if it is far more sparingly mentioned than other leagues such as the AAFL and the UFL. The task is to find it. This does seem like a borderline case of whether or not this is a verifiable, notable league, considering the relative lack of press coverage. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per JMF. Also, the AFD header was removed by User:NortyNort as "vandalism" per this diff. I've restoerd the header and warned the user. - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Did a Google News search for the league, but it was complicated by the existence of the old USFL, which was the subject of most of the hits. Was able to find this link that could be useful as a source for a couple basic facts, but the few other stories mentioning the new USFL were trivial mentions or press releases. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep/Comment - I understand why this page should be deleted, and maybe it is the lazyness in me, but since this team is set to launch next year, this page would just go back up once the USFL launches...that is, if the USFL does launch. I would delete this page if it nears the Spring 2011 timeframe and you hear nothing about a USFL launch. Six-Thirty-Three 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.