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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable semi-pro football team that fails WP:N. Previous AFD ended as "no consensus" ... references provided go to dead page so it is difficult to verify. Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: With a few seconds of googling I was able to find ample press coverage. Try harder next time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after searching google news, there are quite a few articles in small-time local papers, but hardly enough to qualify for "significant coverage" outside the local area. For example, this article combines some awards for the league with the local kid's football league. Good for them, of course--but hardly the level of notablity required for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Truth be told, I can't find the part of the GNG or WP:RS debarring "local" sources from qualifying. Ravenswing 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem in using local sources to establish notability, as long as the source is reasonably solid (ie. not just a community newsletter). bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a team but a league, and one which appears to have received a high enough level of coverage to justify retention. As far as I'm aware the only notability guideline that specifically requires at least one non-local source is WP:ORG, which doesn't apply in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question how does WP:ORG not apply to this organization?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 28 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.