Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Riding Amateur League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Like I said some sourcing seems to exist but I don't thnk it has convinced people. If further significant sources can be found the article can always go through AfC. Fenix down (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Riding Amateur League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing more than a trivial mention in a newspaper [1] and an equally trivial mention in a book [2]. Even FCHD has very little info on this league. I'm happy to be proved wrong but this looks like a WP:GNG fail. Spiderone 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Results listing and match reporting don't really indicate GNG, they can be found for competition at almost any level, so not really seeing anything to support GNG, bit no harm waiting another week to see if initial claims of notability can be supported by more substantial articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (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.