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 merge to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Premier League of America season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results Quidster4040 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment much like the other articles I have nominated, you have failed to demonstrate that reliable sources exist for this season as a whole such that it meets WP:GNG. Referring to google searches is NOT sufficient reason to keep an article, and this article currently has ZERO citations. Jay eyem (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The league started out small but has through one renaming and now a merger become a part of the much larger and reputable United Premier Soccer League, forming its entire new Midwest Conference. These articles therefore form part of the history of that league. ByteofKnowledge (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesn't help demonstrate notability of this season. Plus it remains to be seen whether or not the season for that league will be considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my argument for the 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season. Furthermore to the nominator I believe the season articles should have been grouped together in one AfD. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it took me about two minutes to find three reference-able third party sources for the league, so I added them even if this gets deleted. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur league season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of sources, we have at least a number of articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] Local newspapers had photojournalists at games [5] and game scores were picked up on local tv stations (albeit a brief article.) [6]. I believe that's significant coverage which talks about the season in detail (though not all games have stories, unfortunately) in reliable sources independent of the subject, creating a presumption of notability that's on the nominator to rebut. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources one and two as listed right now discuss the entrance of a new team and an exit of an old team. The Fifty Five One source is an example of routine coverage, which is insufficient reason to maintain the article. There needs to be a source given that demonstrates that notability is established with significant coverage for the season itself, not just when teams entered or exited the league. This has not been done so to this point in the resources provided. Jay eyem (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's fine. I added those sources with about two minutes' worth of work. A sports league season article is an event. Even assuming you're right the articles are [[[WP:ROUTINE]], multiple routine sources about an event actually show an event's notability. It shouldn't be hard to source this article. SportingFlyer (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That combines both WP:ROUTINE and WP:SYNTH, one argument of which is insufficient, the other of which is an improper way to maintain an article. There needs to be sources with significant coverage about the season itself. If you want to source the article yourself then do so please. Jay eyem (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season and 2017 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually think merging would be an excellent alternative, but rather merge the information into Premier League of America, such as keeping the tables and the playoffs. Since there are only three total seasons for a now defunct league, I don't think there would be WP:LENGTH issues to worry about. Jay eyem (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (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.