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 no consensus. v/r - TP 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 I-League U20 (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth competition. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason: Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 I-League U19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – doesn't appear to be covered in any reliable third-party source. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just because I think it's unfair to nominate this when our Indian expert (Arsenalkid) is on a one month block. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol what? Aren't there any other Indian editors around?! – Kosm1fent 13:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mentoz, that's not a valid reason to keep an article. These articles fail WP:GNG; any meaningful content beyond sports results (of which there is minimum) should be merged with the I-League U20 parent article. GiantSnowman 13:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just saying that nominating these articles when the article creator is blocked, is not fair play as he cannot participate in the discussion. I would hope that this nomination could be withdrawn, and when Arsenalkid is unblocked it can be nominated once again (and in that discussion I will definately vote delete). There are no valid reasons to keep the article, but there aren't any valid reasons to delete the article now and not wait one month. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentoz86, if the block was unwarranted (which I haven't investigated) then there are ways to appeal it, but, in the meantime, the rest of us have to get on with our primary task of developing this encyclopedia, which includes discussing article deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I have added more references to sources that have covered this youth tournament. Am still new to this, so I am not sure if this will be enough to pass WP:GNG rule. Thanx. Aruncito (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the main leagues page, no need for individual seasons to have a seperate article.Seasider91 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article has enough sources to satisfy GNG but it could be argued that many of the sources only exist because they are reporting on the most recent edition of the league. Would it be better to have a section on the u-20 league within the individual I-League seasons? What do we do for other leagues? Eldumpo (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article was nominated for deletion because it seemed to fail GNG. With recent edits, it seems to meet GNG. Perhaps it should be part of another article or something ... and if so perhaps an editor who believes that, should be bold and make this a redirect. However for the purposes of this AFD, it appears to be a Keep. Nfitz (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: YES I agree that 2011 I-League U19 should be deleted as I tried my best but I dont think I will find enough to satisfy GNG but 2012 I-League U20 should stay. It has enough sources to pass GNG, it has more information (which is sourced) than 2011-12 Premier Academy League or 2011-12 A-League National Youth League (Yes I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF) and my article for the U20 I-League is actually complete unlike A-League NYL which has not been edited in ages. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Now that Arsenalkid700 have had the oppurtunity to comment on this AfD, I've struck my "Keep"-vote. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal: How about this. I dont feel right about deleting 2011 I-League U19 as I know I can get it to pass GNG, I just need a lot of time so why dont I put that page into my userspace (User:Arsenalkid700/2011 I-League U19) and we can continue to discuss the 2012 I-League U20 as I still believe that it is notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: 2011 I-League U19 is now User:Arsenalkid700/2011 I-League U19 for the time being. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (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.