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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elite MCFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Alleged semi-professional football league of questionable notability. Google searches on "Elite MCFL" only shows 9 results, while "Elite Mid Continental Football League" only shows this page. No coverage from independent or verifiable third party sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I am a member of the MCFL and we have just merged with the EAFL, discussions are still in progress for the 2011 season, no website has been made, and not all plans finalized. Only that the leagues will merge and teams have been confirmed, with more on the way. This indeed is a real thing and in the world of semi pro football, this is big. It should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-07 18:17:56
  • Prove it. In fact, prove that anything that you have written, either here or in the article, is true, by showing us where it has been documented, written down, and published. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually, "I'm in it" is a reason to delete because it violates WP:NPOV. Barring that, there are no independent reliable sources and normally semi-pro leagues are not considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, "I'm in it" is a reason to delete because it violates WP:NPOV. — Incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and see what it actually says on the matter. Then read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to see that it isn't about membership. Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify Yes, you can write articles about yourselves provided you don't violate NPOV. This article does that--a policy that your link states "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." But even if it didn't, the subject still has failed to overcome the lack of independent reliable sources and that notability of the subject matter has not been achieved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I did cite my source, the press release on the messageboard, which can be found on the Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and EAFL messageboards to back up the leagues existence. Again it was just formed. Rick lay95 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
  • Message boards are not considered "reliable sources" and since these boards are also managed by the organization, they are not "independent sources" either. You'll notice that there are zero articles found on Google News as an example of the lack of newsworthy coverage of the subject matter. Try another wiki, you might have better luck in a different outlet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Again the league was just formed, more formal information will be given out after Sunday December 12th when the league will provide more information and most likely member teams will start posting this on their websites. I would not delete this, knowing that additional information is forth comming. Trust me this is real. No Google news will not cover it because they don't care. Semi pro is rarely covered by news papers or media outlets, other than semi pro news outlets and messages boards. Frankly 99% of all semi pro football information is from messageboards. Rick lay95 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
      • So, the forthcoming information will be provided by the league (not independent) or the teams (not independent) and "(no) Google news will not cover it because they don't care" is basically admitting that there will be no independent reliable sources forthcoming. As such, it now, and will likely in the future fail to meet our notability guidelines. I'd say that makes for a very solid argument in favour of deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, semi pro football news outlets will cover it, perhaps you should look there. Its a fact that semi pro football is self reported. If you want further information then I suggest that you do some digging or wait until more is posted. I know the league president and commissioner and everything they have posted is true. I don't know what you want. Other semi pro pages exist and they are just fine, so why is this one such a bother? The information I give you is 100% reliable and further information will be posted in the near future. Rick lay95 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
          • First, Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. Second, what other semi-pro pages exist? Third, self-reporting of news is not considered independent and by policy must be deleted-Wikipedia is not a free hosting server. Fourth, self-published information is not considered "reliable and independent" which is what we require here. Fifth, WP:CRYSTAL covers clearly that generally "events that have not happened yet" are normally not notable. Sixth, I just found Northern Illinois Cowboys as a semi-pro football team and will be nominating it for deletion promptly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mid Continental Football League. That league, at least, is notable, and the merger with the EAFL can be covered there until it's notable enough for its own page. Since the EAFL was only around long enough to merge with the MCFL, never even playing any games from what I can tell, covering the MCFL and Elite MCFL as a single entity on a single page makes the most sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree to that. Even though technical the MCFL and EliteMCFL are two different leagues, if it helps save this i would be fore it.
    • Caution that page has its own problems--no independent sources, for example. It likely will also have to go through the AFD process, and many would argue that does not even approach notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid Continental Football League for afd discussion on the proposed targeted merge page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 15 December 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.