This template is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football
Minor League
What's the definition of "minor league" football (i.e. what's the distinction from "professional")? They're not exactly exclusive concepts. Professional usually just means "paid", perhaps distinguishd from "semi-professional" in that they pay equivalent to a full-time salary or better (or something like that). I'm thinking specifically of the Canadian Football League What's a WP:NPOV way to make that distinction? It could be argued that the CFL is a professional league. I think it's quite a POV thing to say the NFL is the only pro league. --Bdoserror22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template Name
I think this template should probably specify "American Football" or some other appropriate distinguishing name to clarify that it's not what the rest of the world outside of North America and Australia calls "football". --Bdoserror22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Gridiron football article states that it is a term refering to American Football. So why not just say American Football. Pollox8705:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template needs some serious clean-up before it should be pasted on every relevant page. For one, if it's about professional football, why are semi-pro and amateur leagues listed? "NFL Europe" isn't even spelled right. The header isn't centered. Nothing wrong with the concept, it just needs work. -- Mwalcoff00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have update the formatting of this template and removed (gasp!) the Canadian amateur teams. We could use a new and different template for the dozens and dozens of amateur leagues and teams in each Canadian province. -- SunDog | Talk15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add  * '''Support''' or  * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Oppose. This is not the Main namespace. No particularly good reasons for the move have been made here. However, I could well support a move to delete this template, as being too huge and intrusive on the articles in which it is found, being largely useless as a navigation tool, and to the extent it does serve a purpose, being redundant with and better served by good use of categories and wikilinks. Gene Nygaard14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are two sports known widely as football and the one also known as soccer is more widely known as football in the world than American football, hence why FIFA is the Federation of international football associations (or the equivalent in French). The template Template:Professional Football should be re-titled to avoid confusion. --Chappy8421:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though cumbersome, the name really should be named "Professional American Football Leagues", to be in line with the current conventions already well established here at wikipedia. --Jayron3204:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as football means soccer in an international context. DoubleBlue (Talk)
Support As the template creator I am in favor of Template:Professional American football leagues. I view this move as non controversial and will move the page immediately. Thanks for your concern. I continue to wonder about the redirects especially in the template space. Currently, the command {{Profootball}} redirects (transcludes?) to the template. The move procedure will also leave {{Professional Football}} as a redirect (transclude?) to the template. Is it necessary to change the transclusion commands on each page? TonyTheTiger16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the template includes non-professional American Football Leagues - mainly those that are non-North American. Principally, and backed up by the quote I put on the [British American Football League] talk page, the BAFL is an amatuer league and the BCAFL is a collegiate league. The tamplate needs to be renamed to capture all adult kitted Football Leagues worldwide, or slimmed to target ONLY professional leagues (NFL, CFL, NFLEuropa, AFL, etc). I suggest the latter, and a new template captures global semi-professional and amatuer leagues. Londonblitz17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at Wikipedia is that the CFL is not a minor league, it is the highest professional league for the play of Canadian Football, which is considered as a seperate, though similar, code of Football from American Football. For an analogy, see the way that Rugby Union and Rugby League are treated. Any references to the CFL or other canadian football leagues should be removed from a template dealing with American Football. --Jayron3204:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:TonyTheTiger has re-added the CFL to the template under it's own heading. I think we need to clarify what this template is trying to represent and see if it then makes sense for the CFL to appear.--Bdoserror19:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CFL link should be removed and the user should be directed to take the issue up at the talk page. I am no good at technical stuff like template mark-up, but if someone could please remove it, and leave both an edit summary and a comment on Tony's talk page about this, we may be able to reach consensus on how to handle this. I personally would not mind to see the template titled "Professional football in North America" with seperate categories and links for Canadian, American, Arena, and Association (soccer) leagues at the major, minor, and semi-professional levels. --Jayron3221:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the CFL to Other leagues. Due to its importance to professional football job seekers as one of the top two alternatives to the NFL, I felt it should be noted on the template because people using this resource to look up pro football leagues should be able to easily find it. TonyTheTiger16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason I've moved the Arena Football League to that category. Both the CFL and AFL have similar circumstances in that they act is an occasional feeder to the NFL but also that they both play by nominally different rules then the NFL and are both major leagues. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should be under a different category then "Minor Leagues" as the AFL isn't a minor league. The AF2 is, but it's a minor league of the AFL which also owns it. I'd point everyone to the "Connections to the NFL" section of the Indoor football article. The NFL does not consider the AFL to be a minor league and has dropped any remaining official option to ties to the AFL as of several years ago. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!23:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like the categorization of the NFL, CFL, and AFL(Arena) as major leagues... Seems a reasonable categorization. Each is the highest level of its particular code.
Like the rest of the categories (minor, semi-pro, rest of the world)
Changes still needed (I lack the template coding skills to do it. Can someone else handle this?):
The differences between Arena and other Indoor leagues is largely moot. These leagues all share more in common than they have differences. There are a few minor rule differences league-to-league, but not enough to justify seperate headings. Combine these as one heading: Arena/Indoor.
The British Collegiate American Football League seems to be more on par with the NCAA and not any professional level league, so it should be removed from this template.
The World Football League should be added to defunct leagues. The list I cite above also lists several other defunct leagues, though of these, only the WFL, USFL, AFL, and AAFC really lay claim to trying to be a major league...
We seem to have a white-space problem. Maybe some formating changes can help this. Maybe its just something we have to live with.
Love the recent changes. The template looks perfect. I especially like the name change, since it now draws a distinction between "soccer" or "rugby" or "aussie" football and gridiron based football. With the current listing it looks great. Any chance of adding the Women's Professional leagues? --Jayron3221:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arena is "Major"?
I understand that the AFL is the highest classification of indoor football, but let's not fool ourselves (or anyone else). It's essentially a purgatory for NFL wannabes. Are there more than, say, ten cases of players who turned down NFL contracts to play in the AFL? Or for that matter, is there a single case? Its most famous player is Kurt Warner, and it wasn't for his accomplishments in the AFL. --Son of Somebody04:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same arguement can be made for the CFL. But it doesn't change the fact they are both the major leagues in their respective versions of the game. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Professional?
I don't think this template is correctly named. Most of the leagues are not professional. This was raised at Talk:British American Football League. I assume the template is designed to exclude college football yet it includes British Collegiate American Football League. I wonder whether the scope of this template is too broad and it should be slimmed down significantly.
On the first point. People have been adding leagues that may be out of the scope of the template, like the British American Football League. If you see one that isn't a pro league then please by all means remove it from the template. As for NFL Europa, it is a designated feeder league to the NFL and is not the highest level of American football. The AFL and CFL however are not feeder leagues to the NFL and are the highest level in their particular branch of gridiron football, and in the CFL's case developed seperately. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA!18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "semi-pro" leagues should be split up from the true "professional" minor leagues, mostly the indoor leagues that at least pay $200-300 per game. Also, if we are going down this road, do we want to include the 3-4 womens football leagues (despite them being barely semi-pro). Dletter14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to draw the line somewhere on the semi-pro thing. Let's face it semi-pro leagues are a dime a dozen. IMO this should only list leagues that are of some consequence to the sports world, not minor regional leagues that nobody's ever heard of. And definitely not these "leagues that never played a game", as there are literally dozens. heqs ·:.07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this template was a mess. I have been bold and reduced the scope to established/non-regional professional leagues located in North America, and left some notes underneath. heqs ·:.08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this template needed cleaning up but, I believe the scope was reduced too much. Regional leagues can be legitimate and many minor pro leagues across sports are only regional. After all, North America is a very big place. Personally, I consider the WIFL, UIF, IFL, and even the NIFL (at least until they officially shut down) as active minor pro indoor leagues as well as the ones still listed on the the template.
Also, I feel the term 'gridiron' is not accurate as that is just a nickname mainly used outside North American to distinguish the code(s) of football this most popular in the U.S. and Canada. The term is rarely heard here and I question if it the term is really that well know outside North American except for maybe Australia. Using 'gridiron' for this template would be like using 'soccer' instead of 'football' for the "Football in England" template.
If this template is to continue as is then I would suggest it be renamed "Professional American, Canadian, and Indoor/Arena Football leagues in North America" or simply "Professional North American football leagues" just to cover the three main versions. Better, the Indoor & Arena football leagues should be split off to a new template for those leagues and leave this one to the "outdoor" game only. Straykat99t19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps I was a bit drastic with my edits. However, my changes have been wholesale reverted and the template once again lists amateur leagues like Canadian Junior Football League and non-North American leagues. There seems to be a consensus here to at the very least limit it to professional leagues based in North America, so I will be reverting to include only that for now. I think something along the lines of Straykat99's suggestion will work best in the long run. heqs ·:.12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you pull the "defunct before games began" and the "proposed" sections? Both had legitimacy, in that they only listed leagues where players would be getting paid. Especially in the "Proposed" section, the UFL and AAFL have had quite a bit of press written about them. Dletter20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is a monster and still seems to include a variety of leagues that aren't professional in nature. Those that did not exist should not be on the template - and indeed should probably be their own Category rather than be on a template of professional leagues. For a league to be professional, presumably it should have existed. MLA (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Gridiron football" not appropriate for this template - please revert the renaming
I agree. I would say "American football" is more appropriate than "gridiron football". From what I can gather, "American football" is what other articles on Wikipedia use when disambiguating football and soccer. For NFL Europa, I think that it still remain in this template since it was renamed from the former World League of American Football which included franchises in the Unites States. So my vote is that this template is renamed to {{Professional American football leagues in North America}}.X96lee15 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I retracting my statement after reading the earlier comments on this talk page. Since this template includes Canadian football and arena football leagues, then I don't think "American football" covers all those variations. I still am not a fan of "gridiron football", but that may be the best option. But maybe since there is this naming issue, the template is including too many different types of leagues. X96lee15 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But "North American football leagues" covers the territory much more appropriately than "gridiron football". The leagues are North American (NFL Europa can be tucked in as an extension of the WLAF), and in none of the leagues is the sport called "gridiron football". All this takes is a move/rename of the template. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this template contains rugby union links Gridiron is not an appropriate name.Rugby football is not a kind of gridiron football. Either take the rugby links out or re-name it "Professional gridiron football leagues in North America (and rugby football leagues of Canada)".--Jeff79 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is rugby included here at all? The term "football" in Canada does not mean rugby; it means the type of football played in the CFL. There are rugby leagues in the United States, too, including at least one semi-professional league, but no one has suggested listing them on this template. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dletter (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I have to agree... the best case of this being the PSFL in 1992, which had training camps, preview shows on SportsChannel... and then folded 10 days before kickoff. While I agree that from what I have seen, I'd say I'm 95% sure that the 2009 season will happen, it still is not set in stone.[reply]
UFL Major??
I realize that nothing's set in stone yet, but in the event the UFL does succeed, where will it be added to this chart? I assume major leagues along with the NFL (since the UFL isn't a minor league) or do you make a section for alternative leagues? 172.192.191.113 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon to say. Whether it is considered major or minor is something that will have to bear out with time.
It may not have official affiliations, like MiLB, the AHL or the D-League, but it doesn't appear that it's going to be at the level of the NFL any time soon, and the NFL will remain, for the foreseeable future, the prefered destination for top-flight players.
Those are probably the main criteria for major status. The UFL appears to be filling the gap between the NFL and the much smaller regional leagues also listed. It likely will be the Triple-A of football, but as I said, it's too soon to say.
The best thing to do, I believe, is to wait to see what the overall media reaction is, and what the overall public opinion turns out to be. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying to leave it in the "planned" section, but I don't think it can be put into the "major" category right away, either. Truth is, the public perception of the league is that it is below the NFL, not nearly even with it as putting it in the same section would imply. I do believe the league will get off the ground, but there's no way that, in 2009, people will accept a brand-new 4 team league as equal to a 32 team league with 80+ years of history. As I said, the perception is likely to fall into a "Triple A football" view, which we'll have to figure out how to phrase and when to add it. oknazevad (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that the newly announced Arena Football 1 was added to this list, but I would argue that with most of the Arena Football 1 teams coming from the af2, and it not yet having played a single game, it shouldn't immediately be declared a "major" league. Maybe there isn't a major Indoor League right now until the next season starts and one of them proves itself to be the leader. Micah008 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's too soon to call it major. Indeed, I'm not sure if any arena/indoor can be called major at all. Also, considering the events leading to Arena Football 1's formation, it's probably also time to just move the Arena League and AF2 to defunct. Even without formal announcements, the only teams tya have expressed a firm desire to continue have joined AF1. oknazevad (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
XFL was not Major
The XFL was not a "Major" League. The talent level was well below that of other simalar leagues. If the XFL was major, then the UFL is for sure a Major League. 172.190.78.74 (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the XFL not really being major, due to its significantly lower talent level, and slipshod operations, not to mention the fact that it lasted only a single season, nowhere near long enough to truly achieve major status.
And that's the thing, major status has to be earned over time. The AAFC and AFL certainly did, and it could be strongly argued that the USFL gained it during its brief life.
I'm not convinced the WFL did. It did attract fairly high quality players, but was very poorly run, collapsing mid-season.
As for the UFL, as per our discussion at the UFL talk page, the clear consensus is that it hasn't achieved major status yet, and may never.
Personal views and opinions on the talent level of the XFL as well as comparisons to other similar leagues unless supported by a reliable source, a neutral third party source at that, constitutes original research and thus is unsuitable for Wikipedia. NBC and World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. at the time noted the XFL as a major league through press release and broadcasts. As for third party sources, TIME[1] and The Washington Post[2] are some of the established news sources that noted the XFL as a major league as well. "These are just the kind of fans the National Football League wants, and the kind that the World Wrestling Federation has been able to drag blindly into its new enterprise, the first major pro league to be launched since the three-season flop of the United States Football League (USFL) in the mid-'80s. The XFL is a joint venture by the World Wrestling Federation and NBC that debuted last Saturday night."--UnquestionableTruth--03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping the major/minor in favor of national/regional
In light of some of the arguments brought forth over what constitutes major league vs. minor league, I've decided to, as I did with the indoor football section, change the subdivisions for the pro teams instead to "national" and "regional." This makes it easier to establish criteria.
A national league is one that, after 1933, had teams in most parts of the country. Prior to 1933, it is a league that served most of the areas served by the other professional sport at the time, baseball. (Otherwise, the American Football League of 1926, which was national by the standards of the day, would likely be considered regional because it lacked a franchise in the South or West Coast.) Regional leagues have its teams concentrated in one part of the country (e.g. the East Coast, the South, the West Coast). Most of the minor leagues are regional. Most of the national leagues are major. This also eliminates debates over what constitutes "major" such as the XFL debate (as they were clearly national, though the major part is disputed); the only minor league that would be considered national was the Continental Football League, and even they had intended to be major at one point.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree, and am reverting. The modern NFL is in a distinct class so above any other league, that not putting them in a category by themselves is an act of questionable value. Seriously, the UFL is in no way on the equivalent level as the NFL, and should not be put in the same category. I might be willing to agree to it for the defunct leagues, but I'd wait on wider discussion for that. oknazevad (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective, but 1) I'm slightly weary of having multiple categories with just one item in them, and more importantly 2) what constitutes a major league is subjective, and takes into account a lot of factors (fan attendance, player salaries, media exposure, etc.). Furthermore, teams can claim to be major (and have media outlets parrot this claim) but not really be on the par of a real major league. What I'm basically saying is that if we're going to classify teams under "major," "minor" or "other," there should be some sort of objective, verifiable, neutral standard as per Wikipedia standards. Using a national/regional categorization, in my perspective, is far easier to objectify than the apparently subjective terms "major" and "minor," especially when the NFL does not have a codified minor league system as the other leagues do. For the time being, considering that there is a virtually unanimous consensus that the NFL is one of the four major U.S. sports leagues, I'll separate the NFL and UFL into "major national" and "other national" until we can get a consensus. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a pretty good compromise. There's certainly no doubt that no other league playing any form of gridiron football is at the NFL's level of popularity (as measured by attendance and TV ratings) and player salaries. It's easily the most dominant league in the sport for its country, which is the simpliest definition of "major" compared to "minor". Top it off with football being the most popular sport in the country and there's no arguing it's inclusion in the "major" category.
The other thing to think about as we try to hash out definitions is that "minor" does not necessarily mean a formal subservience. Independant minor leagues exist in baseball and basketball. They may not be affiliated with MLB or the NBA, but they certainly aren't challenging them anytime soon. Just a thought. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this isnt a consensus and should be changed back to what it was before, "Major" and "Independent", until a consensus is agreed upon. I also really dont like you Oknazevad. Sorry, but you are a very objective editer and often use edits to make a point. You gotta be a republican. haha 172.190.220.116 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you weren't around that day, doesn't mean it wasn't a consensus. I can see another user besideyself and Mr. Fuller has already reverted you, only for you revert him. For you to not accept the consensus shows your continued disruptive edits, seerly harming my ability to assume good faith. I'll take being called "objective" as a compliment. See here for the actual meaning of the word you misused. Politically, I belong to no organized political party. And read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Overall, it's obvious you don't like me because I stop your repeated attempts to POV-push in these articles. Excuse me for following policy. oknazevad (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly constitutes a consensus? You and Mr. Fuller are the only other to comment on the issue. I could be wrong, but I dont think that 2 people constitutes a consensus.
Also, Excuse me you are "Subjective", you have in the past attacked me and others for making edits that may have upset you or you dissagree with. I think you not only have harmed ability to assume good faith, but I doudt you ever had it all. 172.190.220.116 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We still dont have a consensus, i will change it back, if we cant comprimise. 172.190.200.137 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
..."Compromise" no the consensus is set I believe. You are more than welcome to argue your case and convince other members to agree with you, thus forming a new consensus. --UnquestionableTruth--02:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you (IP 172.190) have not made a case for your objection yet, other than a personal grudge with someone who wasn't even the person who suggested the change (which isn't sufficient by any stretch). If you object to the national/regional categorization, then why? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do object to the national/regional characterization of professional American football leagues - see below. If the characterizations are to be used, they must be supported by citations in reliable sources (preferably contemporaneous ones); otherwise it is just original research. B.Wind (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with professional American football leagues is that all the pre-1946 leagues were regional in nature (the first league with a national scope with teams on both coasts was AFL II after it admitted the Los Angeles Bulldogs). On the other hand, the United States sports media quickly accepted the NFL as the major league upon the formation of the league in 1920. Similarly, any league in direct competition with the NFL was accorded "major" status regardless of whether it was regional or national in scope. The standard continued after the formation of the AAFC, AFL IV, WFL, and the USFL (but not XFL or WLAF). So adopting the "regional" vs. "national" distinction is essentially meaningless in professional American football, but the minor/major distinction is not only meaningful: it's traditionally consistent. B.Wind (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant your point on the pre-1946 leagues. There were such things as "major regional" leagues (the Ohio League, NYPFL, Anthracite League, et al.) prior to the launch of the NFL. However, with the possible exception of the AFL of 1940, eventually every league that was considered major had teams in at least three of the four generally recognized regions of the United States (Midwest, Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, South, and West Coast-Rockies), and even the AFL of 1926 at least had a team in name only (the L.A. Wildcats) that represented the West and played a home-stand exhibition there. I know it might be an argument of semantics, but there are some cases where there is a significant amount of dispute on whether or not a league is considered major (the XFL being the most obvious example; some sources say yes, others say no). The reason I proposed this was to make it easier to establish a standard category. As I stated before, what constitutes major and minor requires several factors. You make the statement that "any league in direct competition with the NFL was accorded "major" status regardless of whether it was regional or national in scope." Who made this decision? With a few exceptions, most of the post-1927 or so regional leagues were considered minor, even if they claimed to challenge the NFL (see, for instance the American Football League (1934). Though in more modern times, the concept of a nationwide minor league is conceivable given the NFL's virtual monopoly on major talent, this has not always been the case. I would venture to suspect that one of the key factors in what was considered a minor or major league was precisely the definition I used-- how widely spread the teams were spread across the country, and how much of a base they could cover. Hence, such a national or regional characterization would not be meaningless, as you say, but in fact simply a more clear representation. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folded before playing any games (do we need any of these leagues?)
I am wondering how many of these leagues are really needed. Most of these look like they were someone's gee whiz idea but never got much beyond that. I think those leagues that had some actual influence are worth keeping at least. Among the ones I see:
Indoor: WIFL is worth keeping as it was the first proposed alternative to Arena and appears some work was done. The two NAIFLs would be worth deleting since they seem just like proposals that never got beyond paper. Extreme FL could be deleted since it just points to AF2 league anyways.
Outdoor: PSFL seems to have gotten close to running. AAFL (1998) and APFL in this category both seem like leagues that only existed on paper and nothing else. AAFL (2008), IFF, UNGL all seem borderline in that they did conduct some activities before folding. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object (this template is very large and could really use some trimming down-- perhaps splitting the semi-pro leagues off into a separate article would help matters). You may want to consider proposing some of the articles in question for merger into a summary article (e.g. List of proposed professional football leagues) or deletion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A separate template for semi-pro outdoor leagues would be good since most of them are quite irrelevant and leagues tend to appear and disappear quickly, although I might leave on NAFL just for the size of it. Proposed sports leagues would probably be a good idea for a different article, especially since many of these leagues would barely meet WP:N by themselves. The down side is there's a ton of gee whiz ideas that never go much farther than that. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AAFL was much more legit than the other two. I would say WIFL (1988) indoors and PSFL and AAFL outdoors make the most sense to keep, since they did stuff outside of just having a junk website to show they were serious about playing. Dletter (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Just looking at UNGL article and google search on the league, I don't see too many references to it at all. Probably the biggest article about the league is about a city and a stadium being named as expansion franchise, only nobody involved with the stadium knew about the league or were in talks with the league. To me, this seems to be, at best, a fantasy league taken too far. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed they did change names and see there are more articles about them. However, my original feelings still stand. They did name 6 franchises. It appears they never signed any contracts with stadiums. They apparently did have tryouts people had to pay for then closed up shop pretty quickly afterwards. Maybe if there were more articles about that, might be worth leaving on. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the UNGL article could certainly use more sources, but it pretty much covers everything. There's no separate team articles as I previously redirected them to the league article, as there's no independent notabiloty for teams that never played. The funniest thing is that the New USFL isn't listed at all, and more has been written about that. Officially it's still in the works, but there's never been any solid announcements or anything substantial; it's likely as non-existant as the UNGL and AAFL. But it has gotten some notice because of its planned name.
In short, it's pretty difficult to go purely by number published stories. Though less was written about it, the UNGL did more than the New USFL has, or in my opinion, ever will. I think it passees the threshold of inclusion. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Women's
None of the women's leagues are professional, they are all amateur, and should be removed because of this fact. The only women's league that is actually professional is the Lingerie Football League. Jntg4Games (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sexism has nothing to do with it and I advise youth withdraw that personal attack immediately. It was utterly uncalled for. Failure to retract it will result in a report to the appropriate notice board.
The fact is none of the women's leagues previously listed here are fully professional, and therefore don't belong on this navbox. Just like the semi-pro men's leagues that were removed. But if you actually cared to read the discussion, you would have seem that. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my edit...just read the long-standing arguments of professional vs. non-professional leagues. It seems that leagues like the WFA and IWFL don't count because the players are unpaid, correct? If so, then the LFL (Lingerie or Legends Football League, whatever you prefer) should not be considered professional either, as their article clearly states their players haven't been paid since 2011. Rozehawk (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
