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 speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale Super Football League[edit]

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

Non-notable local league - clearly fails WP:GNG. Possible speedy deletion candidate as it seems to relate to this? J Mo 101 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this league meets GNG. I note that the creator of the article seems to have copied headers and maintenance templates from other articles as they are dated in 2012 and 2013 even though the article was created on 18 December 2015. If an admin can determine that this is fundamentally the same article as Rochdale Super League, then I would also recommend adding some SALT. I'm !voting here in case my WP:A7 tag is declined. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be the same article as the one that has been deleted on numerous occasions. Still no improvement and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this article entirely unsourced and not notable. Their chosen sport is five-a-side football, a football variant with no significant fan following. If we can't even get a fan-site to check the facts of the article, much less a reliable source, this is an open invitation for original research and vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2016 (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.