Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Professional Basketball League (2007-)

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 Keep. Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [non-admin closure][reply]

The result was Delete, non-admin closure overturned. The standard of multiple independent sources has not been met by the sources presented. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Professional Basketball League (2007-)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

• Delete I think this one's a no-brainer. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability established by this news report, as well as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Corvus cornix_talk 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Usbasket isn't a
  WP:N. Secret ^account 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Usbasket is most definitely an independent source, and I see nothing to indicate that it isn't reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usbasket covers any basketball league, and it's blog coverage in which sometimes the league themselves add the info, far from reliable or independent, the rest talks about the local teams in the local newspaper, nothing about the league in general. Secret ^account 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though the league is currently lacking in news reports, its seems logical to keep it around until the season starts to see if its for real. If the ABA merits inclusion, the NPBL should as well.
  ABAsite 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I concur with above statements. Plus with the Elmira nee Corning Bulldogs joining the league from the ABA, that has to give it a measure of credibility such as it is. If anything the page needs an overhaul, but not a deletion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what about the sourcing concerns I mentioned, if it's lacking in news reports, or any time of
    Reliable sourcing, it should not have an article. Secret ^account 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • They do, however, acknowledge the existance of the league. Perhaps until the season starts, it would be reasonable to list teams that are confirmed and teams that are proposed, per the NPBL website. The Eastern Basketball Alliance has its own wikipedia entry and this league seems to be making an attempt to go above that. I do however, believe an overhaul would be reasonable.
      ABAsite 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.146.140.192 (talk) [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.