Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1972 Salvadoran Primera División

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 Draftified.. Moving to Draft space like 1973 Salvadoran Primera División article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Salvadoran Primera División

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Too many unknowns. The Banner talk 16:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added to article including RSSF for the historic table, article about the death of a player during the seasons, and sources for Aguila the team winning the championship. BKReruns (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @BKReruns:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. The article has barely any meaningful content and is not at all suitable for mainspace. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 19 September 2022 (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.