Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Intermediate League World Series

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 keep. Meets GNG per the sources below. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Intermediate League World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT for lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 16:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep...Its part of Little League and we cover all the other age group world series. This one is fairly new compared to the LL World Series or the Junior League World Series.. but it's part of the same field. There is coverage out there. [1] [2] [3] Spanneraol (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one of those sources are about the subject of this article and it's WP:ROUTINE. The other two are about teams. One is a blog. As far as I can tell, the only coverage for this subject is routine and mostly in local publications.- MrX 12:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  They are from news organizations, not blogs, and are about the tournament. The teams in the tournament and how they did in it is still about the tournament. There are more if you look. Spanneraol (talk)

• Keep - The links supplied by Spaneraol are sufficient for a GNG pass: multiple independently-published sources of presumed accuracy dealing substantially with the topic. Nicely done. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by Spanneraol. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 16 July 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.