Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Say No Classic

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[Say No Classic]]=

:{{la|Say No Classic}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Say No Classic}})

Non-notable basketball summer league that (vaguely) claims "is recognized as one of the top NCAA sanctioned summer leagues in USA." No source provided for the statement, and article fails GNG and PRIMARYSOURCE anyhow. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep I never heard of it before, but it gets [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22say+no+classic%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Giv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&biw=1280&bih=864&source=hp&q=%22say+no+classic%22+site:latimes.com&pbx=1&oq=%22say+no+classic%22+site:latimes.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=23753l26917l0l27033l17l15l0l0l0l0l276l2301l3.10.2l15l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=165bfefa6b75e1a2 extensive coverage in the Los Angeles Times], plus its been described as a "summer-league staple" by [http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/lakers/post/_/id/21688/drew-league-finale-provides-high-flying-ending ESPN], an "important forum for college athletes" by [http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/a-basketball-summer-theres-nothing-like-a-game/ The New York Times], and "a premier summer college league" by [http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1232859 Yahoo! Sports]. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As the article is now, it still doesn't warrant inclusion. Those sources are great, but I have no motivation or interest in expanding it. No references or expansion have been added to the article, so I'm still not convinced it should be kept based on that. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue is whether the subject is notable and if sources exist to justify the article. I believe the sources that were added since the AfD justify it. As to its current state and the lack of past effort, WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT say these problems can be overcome and are not a basis for deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Seems to pass the GNG, as demonstrated by Bagumba. It's a clean stub, and definitely has potential for expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Appears to pass the minimum threshold for notability, is now very well sourced for such a short stub. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

: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.