Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defunct football leagues in Scotland

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 speedy keep. Snow. Consensus is the noms rationale for deletion is invalid. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct football leagues in Scotland[edit]

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

Contains no information beyond a list of league names; superfluous given the existence of Category:Defunct football leagues in Scotland. Jellyman (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CLN. No valid rationale given for deletion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Prince of Thieves that there is no rationale provided for deletion, just a personal preference for categories rather than lists (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The existence of Category:Defunct football leagues in Scotland is an argument to keep, not an argument to delete, as it indicates that the list is likely to be notable per WP:LISTN. The list seems to also pass WP:LSC, particularly as most of the items are blue links. However, I looked at a couple of the linked league articles, and they don't provide WP:RS for each league, and the list itself could be improved with citations evidencing that the list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as suggested in WP:LISTN. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legit list per WP:CLN. Can be expanded. Ajf773 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Giant Snowman 08:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a perfectly reasonable list that people might look for, certainly needs an improvement but I can't see any clear rational for deletion. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does not seem to be a clear rationale for deleting and the subject is notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (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.