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. Sandstein 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential nfl expansion[edit]

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

The topic I'm pretty sure is probably notable, and I do read news once in a while about potential NFL expansion teams. However, I've also read that NFL expansion appears to be on hold, at least in the short-term. As for the article itself, the lead appears to be more about relocations than expansions, and the rest of the article is mostly speculation and original research. I'm sure a proper article could be written about the topic or be merged to our article on the NFL, but not in this state. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to NFL expansion, or something similar. This article is very badly written, but the solution is for someone knowledgeable to write a masterpiece. Note that Expansion_team#National_Football_League is much better written, although it is about the past and this is about the future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding is roughly that of the nominator - that NFL expansion is on hold for now, and even that it's not desperately keen on more relocation following the last couple of years. That makes any discussion of a Portland team (which is largely what this article boils down to) more in the line of speculation than anything else. If and when the concepts of expansion or relocation are raised in a more serious matter, there's bound to be scope for something better to be written, but there'll also be truckloads more in relation to sources and possible locations by then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes you have to just pull the plug and start again. I'm going with "ignore all rules" to delete because it's just so poorly written it's not helpful. Would be glad if someone would userfy or incubate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly, the main article National Football League isn't terribly long, as these things go. It doesn't even mention Las Vegas getting the Raiders, which is weird, for a significant development like that. One could add a line there about potential expansion, and then maybe mention of possible future sites -- if there is ever enough reliable sources. The only RS on the nominated article is maybe the Oregonian, and that's just a capsule mention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article discusses the recent relocations(which is not expansion) and the hopes of other places to have a team, not actual efforts towards creating new teams; most of it isn't even cited. Agree that this subject might merit an article with better sourcing and prose, but it should start from scratch. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2017 (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.