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. Tone 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Continental Football 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)

Page was already deleted with a prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid Continental Football League. No reason is given for re-creation and sources in the article don't really point to any more notability than the previous discussion. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G4. Fails GNG this is WP:listcruft of non notable teams created by a user whose user page User:Rick_lay95 is dedicated to this subject (and to be honest looks like it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST). --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to speedy, but I didn't want to start there without making sure I didn't miss anything.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy given it has been eight years since the last discussion took place, and it's questionable whether that discussion should have even been closed as delete in the first place given consensus. I'd need more time to look for sources before I !vote delete, but there's enough possibility that new sources have arisen in the past eight years that I'd strongly oppose a speedy. Smartyllama (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moreover, there is currently no sourcing presented to show that the league would pass WP:GNG. If Smartyllama or someone else can present such sourcing, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My searches turned up infrequent articles about particular teams (e.g., this, this, and this) but no significant coverage of the league itself. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 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.