Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Basketball 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Basketball League

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

In November, User:Secret proposed this article for deletion, stating that there is "no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, absolutely no reliable sources." User:331dot endorsed this proposed deletion. However, a couple days later, User:TheScottDL removed the PROD, stating: "Add several references." However, I would like to agree with Secret on this one and say that this league doesn't meet the GNG (and since it's an organization, it would also fail WP:ORG.) For it to pass, it would need to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, and I'm just not seeing that for this league. The only thing that I really see is WP:ROUTINE coverage of certain games. There is nothing that goes in depth about the league itself outside of the official website and fringe sites (unreliable sources). Furthermore, if we used the same guidelines for leagues as we did for players, this would be deleted because only players who play for major professional leagues are notable (see WP:NBASKETBALL). Tavix | Talk 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I didn't add this to my original nomination because I can't be for sure with this league, but most North American sports leagues are non-profit organizations (it is the individual teams that make the money, the league is just the umbrella that works on behalf of the team owners in order to help them run correctly, etc.). If this were the case, it would also fall under WP:NONPROFIT, which states that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale." Since this is a regional league, it would fail that guideline. Tavix | Talk 03:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A regional semipro league that is not demonstrated to be notable. Tavik explains this well. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a league, its notable, and its cited. What else does it need?--JOJ ^Hutton 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We don't use the same criteria for organizations as we do for people nor does the tax-filing status of a sports league suddenly force it to a higher standard for inclusion (nor is that the intent of the currently-in-dispute WP:NONPROFIT). That said, most independent sports leagues are setup as for-profit corporations (even if profits are rare) so without solid sourcing that this league is a registered non-profit any application of WP:NONPROFIT are moot. - Dravecky (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a cursory search turns up reliable third-party coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.) of the league and member teams sufficient for WP:ORG. "DFW Reporting" is the branding that current owners The Dallas Morning News have placed on the former Pegasus News site which they recently acquired and absorbed. - Dravecky (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:11, 13 February 2015 (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.