Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite Indoor Football

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. Consensus seems pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Indoor Football

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Elite Indoor Football (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)

Appears non-notable per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes notability. PXS1245 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — PXS1245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep 49.49.239.63 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — 49.49.239.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep 👍🏻Like. Kerpioniolopschique (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Kerpioniolopschique (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Might want to search for sources instead of just asking for it to be deleted, IMHO. Lololololollololllloolllll000000023 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Lololololollololllloolllll000000023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per consensus. Little Miss Wikipeda (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Little Miss Wikipeda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • And then suddenly a ton of single-posting
    WP:V and decide on their own "consensus" with themselves. A discussion is not a vote, you can't just flood the ballot box and "win". Sources are needed. Lets start with a source that provides even a single game of coverage between two teams in the EIF (not social media, but even that is lacking). Or even one of the team's season record last year. Good luck. Yosemiter (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's not how consensus works, bro! You can't just abuse the system like that!
    WP:NOTVOTE. 24.15.68.186 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Is someone upset that consensus isn't going their way? No need to log out and
      WP:SOCK as an IP! 49.49.245.72 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That is not me, I would never use the term "bro". Perhaps you should read
        WP:CONSENSUS. (Also my IP would start with 192. or 71.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep despite what the deletionist snowflakes are saying! 49.49.245.72 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously notable. Go out and search 4 sources instead of complaining that there are none! Punicdana (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per democracy! Menessheik (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep freedom of expression. Yuleguru (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arrowcotes (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per consensus. Sofiawrapt (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hebisian (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the socks above,
    WP:PROVEIT. I clearly explained that I did do a search and came up with three mentions which are not sufficient for GNG. (In fact the mentions were in local articles about the Heroes, a team then in the SIF, that played the Steam. It was then mentioned that the Steam play in the EIF. That is about three degrees of separation from actually being subject matter.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:23, 11 September 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.