Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Major League Lacrosse Collegiate Draft

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Major League Lacrosse Collegiate Draft

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

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

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

Unsourced with no context and no indication of notability. Just a list of names. No reason to have a list of draft picks for every year, particularly in this format. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:RAWDATA. Icebob99 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pro lacrosse may not be most editors' interest but it's a notable professional sport followed closely by interested media, and its drafts are well covered. <"national lacrosse league" draft> yields almost 2000 hits in GNews and 750 hits in HighBeam. There is no good reason to wipe out this sourceable content, which is similar to the draft content we have for other sports leagues. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos: this is nothing against Lacrosse but the entire page is just a list of names... Compare it to 2014 NBA draft which not only has over 100 sources, but has actual content. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are not well done, and I also have to apologize for a lapse of attention in my prior post about which lacrosse league we're discussing here; I've corrected the findsources link above. I do think these pages are sourceable and improvable, given the hundreds of news hits that can be seen at GNews and HighBeam and full coverage in sources like uslaxmagazine.com. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search turns up a number of sources reporting on the drafts. A number of colleges seem to think it's important enough to report in their university news (LeMoyne, Marquette, UPENN), draft picks have been reported on by local news (Syracuse), and you could even watch the 2015 draft live on ESPN. And that's just the first page of google results. I think, as a group, they are suitable for inclusion. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The MLL is a significant enough league that individual drafts receive ample coverage in reliable sources, and as such are notable. Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. The current state of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (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.