Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiʻi 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiʻi Football League[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-professional league of questionable notability - teams all appear to be flagged for deletion as well. Google News search on the name brings back no results. Very little significant coverage found in in indepedent publications. Major contributor has an admitted conflict of interest. Contested PROD. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following reasons come to mind for deletion of this article: aforementioned WP:COI; 2) Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT); 3) Contains original research (WP:OR); 4) miscellaneous violations of WP:GROUP (group is too local for coverage in Wikipedia) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not your free web hosting server); 5) Failure to provide reliable independent sources WP:RS (semiprofootball.org hardly qualifies). Typically semi-pro teams are not considered notable and neither are the leagues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are two 3rd party sites listed on the page, it IS noteworthy, I don't understand how semi pro football is not noteworthy, and yes the information is reliable, try and prove how its not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs)
- Sources the "sources" on the page are 1) the league's website (which is not an independent third party source), 2) something called "LogoServer" which only shows the league's logo, and 3) semiprofootball.com, which appears to be nothing more than an enthusiast website primarily serving as a discussion board for people who play and enjoy the sport. These are not independent, reliable sources and discussion boards are especially not considered reliable for Wikipedia standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try and prove okay. Review WP:RS and you'll find "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" -- the discussion boards and websites held out as sources have no editorial oversight, no way to contact the editor, do not cite sources themselves, and otherwise are extremely difficult to verify. Therefore, they don't qualify. Now if there are other sources to bolster the notability of the organization, then these might add a nice touch to the article but without independent, verifialbe, third-party relible sources the article has pretty much got to go. We're not saying the league doesn't exist, it's just that it's not noteworthy enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news comes up with nothing, no independent third party sources, fails WP:ORG. Secret ^account 22:05, 4 January 2011 (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.