Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leicester Longhorns

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester Longhorns

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

It is unusual for a British university sports team to meet our notability guidelines. This one does not appear to: it has no independent sources and all Google results appear to be related either to the team or its rivals. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Uni team who look like they're not even known in Leicester. Also, check out some of the pictures in their Flickr account - and more specifically, ones which show the incredibly small crowds watching. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established, no independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is completely unreferenced. Not notable. British university sports teams in mainstream British sports are rarely notable even within their own institution. This doesn't appear to be an exception. Besides the obligatory sites related to the team and its rivals, the only other reference to the team I could find was a single "in brief" story in the local rag (circulation about 75,000) about them going to the pub one evening. The language in this single article has the whiff of a regurgitated press release that has been sent to the paper. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2010 (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.