Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champaign-Urbana Bandits

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 redirect‎ to Great Central League with the history preserved until such time as sufficient sourcing exists for a spinout Star Mississippi 21:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Champaign-Urbana Bandits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSPORT due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Baseball, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what standards the baseball project applies for lower-level minor-league teams, but a search on Newspapers.com turns up a lot of hits from the 1990s that are not available via a Google search. E.g. this (part 1/part 2), this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: These sources are all routine reports that do not provide the requisite WP:SIGCOV (I checked newspapers.com during my WP:BEFORE check). Let'srun (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude -- This (part 1/part 2) two-page, multi-column piece is the antithesis of "routine". It may or may not be enough (and may have some indepedence issues), but you lose credibility when you call it a routine report. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-direct to the Great Central League, where all info on this minor league can be contained. Spanneraol (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Spanneraol. There is at least one piece of SIGCOV, as noted above, but even that consists almost entirely of quotes from team reps, calling into question its independence. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (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.