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. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Football Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable amateur football league. As such, it fails WP:ORG because this organization does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. The only thing I found was WP:ROUTINE coverage in local newspapers. Tavix |  Talk  23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found some information that may be good to include in an article on semi-pro football in general, but nothing specifically about the notability of this particular league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationales above of nominator Tavix and Paulmcdonald: fails to satisfy WP:NORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2015 (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.