Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingerie 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 delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lingerie Basketball 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)

A city league with four teams that at best played two seasons. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV during a search that included Newspapers.com. Alvaldi (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The two existing sources make for SIGCOV, though I agree it’s not clear this will have enduring notability. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC Of the sources, this has no information about the league other than a short blurb about one of its players. The Fox article is about lingerie athletic leagues in general and has no information about the basketball league other than mentioning that Jenny McCarthy's watched her sister play in a game. So no, the two existing sources do not make for significant coverage, not even close. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My judgement is that the Fox News story qualifies as a profile, given the league is the lede and subject of the first two paragraphs. How about we see what everyone else thinks? Despite your comment I think it is, in fact, “close.” WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC When the only thing about the league that can be extracted from those paragraphs are the name of the league and that a notable person watched its unnamed sibling playing in it then that is not significant coverage about that league. It is the literal definition of a trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV. From that source we can write the following article "The Lingerie Basketball League was a basketball league where Jenny McCarthy's sister once played in." Not exactly encyclopedic stuff. Alvaldi (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Alvaldi. The two sources mentioned above are clearly passing mentions with no encyclopedic coverage.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a silly enough publicity stunt that you'd expect there to be a good deal of coverage; has anybody tried to track some down? jp×g 🗯️ 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I noted in the nomination I did but was unable to find any. It should also be noted that GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. So even if there was a brief burst of coverage around the beginning of the league but nothing more then it would still fail our notability guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I read WP:SUSTAINED to say "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.", which does not mean a subject does not have to have a continual flow of coverage to be notable. I have been around WP:AFD a long time and have never even seen SUSTAINED as a rational for deletion. WP:NTEMP (a different section of the same guideline) states "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been around WP:AFD a long time and have never even seen SUSTAINED as a rational for deletion. What? It's used as a rationale regularly, although often misattributed as BLP1E or BIO1E for bios. NTEMP just means the topic doesn't have to have current coverage if it received appropriately sustained coverage sometime in the past. It's not an exemption from SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen BIO1E often. A league that last a few years is a different thing than a BIO1E. Really don't recall SUSTAINED.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage of this league whatsoever, neither a brief burst of one nore sustained. Brief and trivial mentions do not indicate notability per GNG. You should know this as an experienced editor. Furthermore, there are no indications that this league lasted more than its first year, which in reality was a only few games played by four teams in a span of less than a month. Alvaldi (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG - the sources in the article don't cut it, I don't think. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Of the current sources, the first is a short piece about a single player that lacks significant coverage, the second is not about the league, ditto for the third. Not able to find any other sources that would help this pass the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2024 (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.