Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vienna Girls Softball League

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. Nakon 01:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Girls Softball League

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

This article about a girls softball league has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference listed in the article is simply a link to their web site. My own search found nothing of significance, Whpq (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a link to the league's own website. Fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source is a link to the league's own website. If it can't get publicity elsewhere, then I guess the local editors and news directors don't consider it Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local girls' softball league for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. This is dangerously close to qualifying as a WP:A7 "speedy delete" for failure to state the article subject's importance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2015 (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.