Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Arena 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Arena Football League[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and likely simply WP:TOOSOON. Most sources found pertain solely to Rio Grande Valley Dorados (2019–) coming into the league (maybe unsustained WP:NOTNEWS announcements) and some minor WP:ROUTINE game coverage from their local news, but merely mentions what league they are going to play in. There is a single news report about the Austin Wild and several mentions in Mexico City media about the owner of the Mexicah team (but they are strictly just mentions that he is launching a team). I cannot find any reliable source as to what teams are even members, most appear to be travel-only semipro teams used so the two or three pro teams have someone to play against. Even the WP:PRIMARY website lacks info as the Lagartos team may-or-may-not be members with only one game played/scheduled. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article in its current state is lacking in third party articles, there are a number that can be found with a basic search in bona fide news outlets. The league itself is, from what I can tell, worthy of at least a stub. I have no opinion on the connected articles about the teams in the league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know sports teams aren't subject to WP:NORG, but are leagues? There are quite a few "new league being founded" articles for the Austin team and the Rio Grande Valley team, several of them appear to be press releases/insignificant, and there's one article about one of the games that was played. Since the teams have a longer history than the league, the articles appear to be about the teams more than the league. There was an MSN article that appeared in one of my searches that appeared to be about the league but clicking on it led to a video about a school shooting. In short, I don't know what to do here - does coverage of the teams in the league count towards the league's notability? SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: That is kind of why I put off nominating this one, the two teams (and maybe Mexicah) get more coverage than the league itself. Almost all are "Team X played/announced/did something, who happen to play in the IAFL, yadda yadda yadda..." The main reason I did go with the AfD route: I cannot find any reliable sources that state who the other members are. This Facebook post indicates the Longhorns are an "affiliate", but the main league website makes no mention of what an affiliate is. The Lagartos played one away game and have no other games scheduled (and forums say they folded), but I can find no sources that mention membership other than they are listed on primary website and that they played an IAFL team in RGV. Yosemiter (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's really poorly sourced in that regard. The standings page of the league's website doesn't inspire confidence, either. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The good news is, the BYE week is in 4th place. Too bad Playoff Winner 1 is in 9th. Yosemiter (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Arena League or delete unless proper independent sources are found. This type of organization seems to fit within NORG or GNG guideline, and sources are required for it to be notable in a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: This league is not mentioned in that article right now and only one of the three apparently active IAFL teams ever played any games in that league (3 total games and a forfeit win). Not sure where it would really fit into that article other than the one Austin Wild sentence in American Arena League#Former AAL members. The last line for the Wild would then read "Withdrew from the league after the 2018 season and formed the International Arena Football League with teams based in Texas and Mexico". (That is about the only sourceable fact about this league anyways.) Yosemiter (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't find a logical reason for that merge. What would be the reasoning? Did the organizations merge or one acquire the other?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was a business entity, sometimes we merge subsidiaries to parent companies. A cursory reading of the article gave me the impression that AAL is a parent organization/league. If it is not, and there's no such parent body identified, delete this for failing NORG. Sportcruft, stats-only, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Paul McDonald or merge with one of the teams. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @James-the-Charizard: per WP:XY merging with one of the teams, when at least two seem to have some GNG-level coverage, is typically not accepted. As for keep, which of the independent sources do you consider in-depth coverage? The longest comment about the actual league comes from this source, which says only: "Higgins, who doubles as the co-owner of the Austin Wild indoor football team, has teamed up with owners of teams across Texas and two teams from south of the border, Mexico City and Tampico, to form the International Arena Football League". From this, we have a single sentence of coverage in a source. Everything else are less than a paragraph as we;ll or just mentions: "play in the International Arena Football League, a new league that will have its inaugural season this year...Vipers(sic) have a 10-game schedule for the 2019 season; seven of the games at home. The Dorados will play their opening game at 7 p.m., Monday, March 7 against the San Antonio Knights. Other teams in the league include the Austin Wild, Tamaulipas-Mexico Lagartos, Houston, the Temple Demons and Mexico City Mexicah" (some of which is incorrect, such as no Houston team ever came to pass, it never got off the ground), "most notably for the Mexico City-based International Arena Football League, which is scheduled to begin play this year" (also incorrect, not Mexico City-based), or " Conde Ochoa... who also owns the Mexicah team, which plays in the IAFL-International Arena Football League of the United States", etc. Yosemiter (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yosemiter: I see your point, and the league does lack sources. Sorry for my dumb answer. James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry about it, I say dumb ideas all the time. That's how we get to the good ones!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, true. None of are perfect. James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it was dumb, and a little healthy debate about the interpretation of "significant coverage" never hurts to look into. Yosemiter (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going delete on this per my analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 14 April 2019 (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.