Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIFL Ghostchasers

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/keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIFL Ghostchasers

This is an article on an indoor football league team that never won anything; there's no real evidence that the AIFL is particularly significant to start with, and this team appears to be actively insignificant. The article lacks any non-trivial independent sources and none of the 72 unique Google hits looks like remedying that. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as defunct. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Were a professional sports franchise. Patken4 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll not formally !vote here since I am neutral on the issue, but I do like "actively insignificant". That's rather brilliant -:). Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions. Patken4 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant, and I doubt that it meets notability standards. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being defunct is not relevant to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being defunct is absolutely relevant to notability. 1) It establishes that the venture was not successful enough to persist. 2) It establishes that any entry in the group is not going to expand its profile. 3) It means that all "current events" searches are out of the question. 4) It means that it needs to have a strong "what links here" list to justify the idea that this entity is part of history and claims historical significance. There is no justification presented for the importance of this organization. I'm sure it had local fans and local importance, but encyclopedias are for beyond the local. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere Although when it's gone, whether deleted or merged, this stub of an article won't be missed. Did it have any of the same players from the team it replaced (or chased), the "Ghostriders"? Are there any interesting articles about this hapless team? It rates a mention in the AIFL article or in the article about the team it replaced, the Carolina Ghostchasers. My own opinion is that the AIFL is a bush league for a bush league version of pro football, and that its teams don't rate their own individual articles. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carolina Ghostriders since they were essentially a shadow road team used to fill out the schedule after the Ghostriders gave up the ghost (so to speak). -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is verifiable WP:V that the ghostchasers where professional football team [1]. ccwaters (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to precedent. Non-fans of American football should be aware, for purposes of this discussion, that millions of Americans who live and die with the National Football League would not recognize the AIFL if all of the league's players were standing outside on their doorstep. Nevertheless, we do have articles about the league's other teams. While I originally would have preferred to merge to Carolina Ghostriders, the team that the Ghostchasers replaced for part of one season, the league declared that the Ghostchasers were not a continuation of the Ghostriders and would be listed separately in the standings. [2] Since the Ghostchasers played only road games, they would have had no home town from which to garner fans or local media coverage. Apparently they never won a game, and in fact they lost one of their games 104-0. [3] So I'm not too enthusiastic about recommending "keep" for this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carolina Ghostriders. The league's declaration notwithstanding, the "Ghostchasers" had the same players and occupied the same dates and teams in the schedule as the Ghostriders. Ravenswing 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, not entirely; the Ghostriders' home games were cancelled altogether and the Ghostchasers only played what would have been the Ghostriders' road games. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2008 (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.