Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congressional Softball 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 delete. Wizardman 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Softball League

Unreferenced article about an amateur softball league that fails to establish its notability (notability is NOT inherited) Thetrick (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unreferenced, non-notable amateur softball league. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of business have similar amateur leagues... just because congressional staffers play in this one doesn't make it more notable. Spanneraol (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are some sources that can help establish notability. I'm extremely busy right now, but if someone else can integrate them I think they fit under the burden of notability: NYT NYT (although I admit that one isn't too substantial) Daily Show, and CBS. I'm sure there's more out there if you do a bit deeper digging. --Ybbor ^Talk 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Ybbor's references make this marginally notable, but it is still just an amateur softball league.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable amateur softball league --T-rex 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially an in-house amateur league with such assertions of notability as there are, unsourced and failing WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read Ybbor's sources, and they are solely about the split of the league, so I am not persuaded. If anything, they evidence that the new league is notable, not that the original league is - but more realistically it was a slow news day item, and not something of encyclopedic signficance. GRBerry 21:13, 19 June 2008 (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.