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. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Delaware Black Foxes

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

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

Listing after PROD was contested.

This is a non-professional sports club of questionable notability. The article has existed for 5 years with minimal improvements and a search for independent sources comes up mostly empty. The only independent source provided is from everythingrubyleague, a site that solicits article, which makes me doubt it meets WP:RS. The absence of other independent sourcing tells me the subject fails WP:GNG. Ytoyoda ( talk) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I don't think this is notable. No reliable sourcing that I can find, but perhaps I'm missing something. Kinda puzzled by the contested PROD, but an explanation isn't required for contesting, so whatever. Waggie ( talk) 04:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I guess I should have left a reason for contesting. Reading WP:PROD to the letter, the bad faith removal by the blocked user technically nullified reinstating the prod plus any future prod. But looking at the page myself, I was not convinced it should be deleted without a discussion among experienced users. Even though I couldn't find any direct references with a 5 minute search, if the league is notable, it seems the teams should be. Again, I felt more eyes should judge it rather than a prod. After looking at the article, I actually might lean delete (but I am, for the record, neutral),but was sure hoping it could be sourced up real good by someone in the know. Rgrds. -- Bison X ( talk) 04:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Fair enough, thank you for replying, it's appreciated. I can see your rationale and think it's reasonable. Waggie ( talk) 05:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only non-independent coverage I could find at all is the blurb here, which isn't significant. A redirect to the league may be a reasonable compromise. SportingFlyer T· C 16:10, 23 November 2020 (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.