Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Sports League (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is a bit more clear this time around. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Sports League

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

The previous AFD was closed as "no consensus" by Ron Ritzman. You can see my discussion with him about it here.

The issues from the previous AFD still apply. This is a Round 1 (of 4, with 4 being the National Competition) competition for the United States Academic Decathlon. No other state or regional competition has its own article, as they simply are not independently notable of the main competition. There simply are not enough reliable, independent secondary sources to warrant having this article in my opinion, no matter how large of a competition this is compared to others in the surrounding area. NW (Talk) 04:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I should have said that in the first discussion-- then again, I should have said "donor" instead of "donator" in the first discussion. I think it deserves prominent mention in Erie City School District. Although it seems to be a great program, it has attracted no attention outside of Erie, PA, regardless of the amount of scholarships it generates. This seems to be unique to Erie, and it's unfortunate that it hasn't been a model that's been emulated by other school districts. Still, Wikipedia is not public relations for the school district. Mandsford 21:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Big Dom 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as last time: Delete per WP:ORG. What little notability it has is both local and by association only. That was also a really poor close on Ron Ritzman's part, by the way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A really poor close? It was up for a month, with three relistings and only three !votes, 2 delete and 1 keep. I would have closed it as a no consensus as well. Mandsford 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. RossRSmith (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2011 (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.