Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Adult Baseball Association

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Adult Baseball Association[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable league The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive news coverage of this organization--more than 1,000 hits shown for this organization at Google News archives.[1] I would not favor a multitude of articles about all the NABA leagues around the country, but an article about the national organization is appropriate and worthwhile.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there may be a good amount of coverage, WP:GNG also says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I don't think a semi-pro league is appropriate for an article. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator fails to describe what is "non-notable" about it. 1,000+ hits is quite a bit and the article as a whole is well-sourced (although they are not independent). The subject easily meets the general notability guidelines. As for the "semi-pro" argument, it holds no water. Just because it's not fully professional doesn't mean it's non-notable. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, as Brian points out.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "seems to be" a very vague nomination with no reasoning to justify it. "Seems to be" a nominator who doesn't know what he is doing. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair critique of the nominator. I'm sure ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) nominated it in good faith. The nominator isn't and shouldn't be the focus of the AfD debate, the article is. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in large part. However, I do think that a wp:before search would have obviated this AfD, and can therefore understand Kinston's frustration. The literature, including the few books I added as examples, reflect that this is one of the two most popular such leagues in the nation.Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources from national news publications have established general notability guidelines for the subject. Vodello (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources available. I really don't see any good argument for deleting. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 3 October 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.