Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime 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 No consensus - Viridae ^Talk 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Football League[edit]

Contested prod, asked to be discussed here. Original reason for prod was Fails WP:ORG, only 56 direct hits in google, most of which are wikipedia mirrors and not one of them reliable, fails WP:V. No opinion from my side. Tone 11:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Semi-pro league that plays Canadian football, covers a large geographical area and has been in opeartion for seven seasons. Since googling "Maritime Football League" yields 3,720 results, I'm impressed that nom went through all of those and eliminated 3,664 of them. However, "hard work" is not an excuse for keeping or deleting. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here's the exact google hits count Secret ^account 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why do I get [this]? Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because most of those pages listed is dupicates, you have to click on the fifth or sixth page of hits to find out the exact number. 131.94.55.71 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without the proper Reliable, seceutrary sourcing, an article can't exist, fails WP:N Secret ^account 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of those 56 hits, the majority are either official league pages or provincial/national football bodies. There are also local newspaper articles listed. As it is a major football league in Eastern Canada (to the point of having a University field a sponsored team) it deserves a page. It requires a rewrite, but does not constitute a deletion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Official league pages aren't indepentent of the article required for WP:N, local news coverege isn't the significant converage needed for N, and I don't even see that, the majority I see are mirrors. Secret (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (Provisionally), if the author (or interested party) adds references for statistics and third-party citations for notability.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a policy based reasoning please, i searched for sources myself, I couldn't find anything, if not I would have never made the AFD in the first place. Secretalt (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nn. D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (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.