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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New United States Football League

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, official website says launch delayed to 2012, Wikipedia being used for promotional purposes to attract investors. Brief mention is already in United States Football League. Recreate with reliable sources if the league ever does launch. Prior AfD had very weak keep support for 2011 launch only. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, delete per WP:FUTURE. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with the United States Football League that existed more than 25 years ago. In addition, there is no requirement that one must wait until a league actually begins play before an article can be created. As with other proposed football leagues, it has stayed in the news for years. I seriously doubt that they're going to find a prospective investor among Wikipedias population of 20-something white college boys, but there are plenty of sports fans who follow this to see whether anything has ever come of it. Mandsford 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are requirements for notability and coverage by reliable sources. A non-existant league with no media coverage hardly qualifies for an article. Having a Wikipedia article gives the organizer undeserved credibility with others, and I don't mean Wikipedia editors. If so many people are following it, where is the media coverage? —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google news shows nothing on "United States Football League" after 1998. Sure, a new league could be notable--show us the legitimate news coverage, and YouTube ain't it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm imagining that you typed in the phrase and got this [1] which shows a bar graph limited to the years 1980-1999 (1998-99 are in the last box). That doesn't mean that no hits were found before or after that period, only that the search engine displayed a range where the results peaked. In this instance, one would have to do the "search other years" function for 2008-2010 for the phrase and pass judgment on whether that's enough hits to be notable. This [2] should be taken with a grain of salt, since it's a mix of hits about the "new USFL" and the one that played 1983-85. Mandsford 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as an article about unreleased services (in the form of a professional football league) that may never become available. Not only has this proposed league had to defer its plans by a couple of years (originally planned to begin play in 2010, now not scheduled to begin play until 2012), but it hasn't received much media coverage for its plans. Most of the sources cited in this article are to the league's own web site (many of the pages on which are dead links by now), and others are links to YouTube videos from a YouTube account which is now closed. The only relevant independent sources cited are an article mentioning that the league wasn't planning to have a team in Birmingham, and this 2009 article saying that the league would begin play in 2010 (which didn't happen). The article is filled with speculation about where the teams will play and what their nicknames will be, including which team names from the 1983-85 USFL will be reused, but it has virtually no discussion of anyone who has actually committed to being a team owner and thus investing the money the league will need to begin play, nor any discussion of actual contracts with stadiums being signed to allow games to be held there. And I suspect that so many proposed sports leagues have come and gone over the years that media coverage of this league's plans will be slight until they show some sign of actually getting onto the field. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 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.