Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 San Diego 1904 FC season

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. A lot of this discussion about full professionalism is ultimately redundant. The league is not listed at WP:FPL so it is not fully professional. Some sources have been presented which seem to go beyond routine match reporting, but there isn't really consensus one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised to see this back here later if coverage is not maintained throughout the season. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 San Diego 1904 FC season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not my field, but are separate season articles appropriate for clubs at this level? DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes. The league is sanctioned by USSF at the professional, Division III level. The same as USL League One whose teams also receive season pages. In addition, I believe it is generally accepted that professional clubs, no matter the level, can have season pages made. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The old saying is hard cases make bad law, and this particular league poses a challenge to the fully professional leagues guideline. It has indeed been sanctioned by the USSF as a "professional league," but the USSF has only two distinctions: "professional" and "amateur," and there's a big question as to whether being called professional by the federation means the league is fully professional (I found a source saying several USL League One teams only pay players during the season, which I don't think counts as "fully professional." To date, the league this particular team played in has only played about 20 games total amongst all seven of its teams. It has not announced any details about its spring competition yet. Doing a spot-check, the team's players don't seem to pass WP:GNG. We have a consensus (that conflicts with WP:GNG) that only fully professional seasons are notable (despite of the fact the fifth tier semi-pro English National League gets national level coverage.) Looking at the season's sources, I don't see any which satisfy WP:GNG apart from the single San Diego Tribune article. The rest are blogs or are primary. The kicker for me is I can't find any secondary coverage of the team's games with the exception of this short article. The season is ongoing, but it doesn't seem to have met our notability guideline yet. SportingFlyer T·C 06:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: I'm sorry but I think this opinion: "USSF has only two distinctions: "professional" and "amateur," and there's a big question as to whether being called professional by the federation means the league is fully professional (I found a source saying several USL League One teams only pay players during the season, which I don't think counts as "fully professional." is dishonest. First, what source are you finding for USL League One teams only paying during the season? The only one I can find is a March 2015 article from the Washington Post, and that was about the United Soccer League, the predeccesor to USL Championship and USL League One. I can't find anything for League One specifically but for USL Championship's New Mexico United you have this article stating "USL Championship players are paid and there is no league salary cap. Most player contracts are for one year with a club option beyond. Some NMU players receive housing stipends along with a monthly paycheck. Most contacts include a universal incentive based on team (not individual) production."

Also, you can't use "To date, the league this particular team played in has only played about 20 games total amongst all seven of its teams. It has not announced any details about its spring competition yet." against NISA. If this league is fully-professional then it is fully-professional, doesn't matter if they have played 20 games or 1,000 games. And Spring details not announced officially yet in the end of December I doubt is cause for much concern, especially since majority of the clubs for Spring are basically official anyway. So I don't get why that needs to be said.

Regarding USSF's distinctions between professional and amateur, yes, USSF does just have those two distinctions. Honestly, I bet that is true around the whole world. No one says "this league is fully-professional" normally. Heck, even in MLS you get just "professional". It doesn't matter what words they use, whether professional or fully-professional. What matters is that the players are paid enough to basically make this their full-time career. All indications I can find for League One and NISA show that to be true, especially since for NISA, they're former NPSL clubs who used to play with majority college players who were not paid and now have to pay their players a professional salary. So again, let's not get into this debate over the use of the words professional and fully-professional. We all know what it means to be "fully-pro", we don't need USSF to specifically have that distinction. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on the fully professional leagues thread again about the one source I found regarding player salaries for the NISA - the players were paid $1,400-$2,000 a month for only a few months' worth of work, which I noted is below the US poverty line at the lower end, and the contracts were only guaranteed through the end of the fall season. As you probably know, we maintain a list of "fully professional" leagues because a league which is successful enough to pay all of its players a salary that allows them to be an athlete first and foremost will almost certainly receive enough coverage to have all the players in the league pass WP:GNG, since the league will necessarily receive media coverage. The one source from NISA shows players do not get paid well enough for us to assume the league is fully professional, the league itself only ran for a few months in 2019, and coverage of the league is spotty. The coverage of the team's season is the reason why I !voted delete - not because the league isn't fully professional, but because this particular season fails WP:GNG - but it still shouldn't qualify for our "exception" under the FPL rule. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources I've found for the San Diego 1904 fall season. NBC 7 San Diego [1][2], Fox 5 San Diego [3], The San Diego Union-Tribune [4][5][6], SoccerToday [7][8][9], Daily Press [10], SFGate [11], Chicago Tribune [12], The Baltimore Sun [13], East Village Times [14][15][16][17][18][19]. While coverage is spread out and not done consistently between groups, there should be enough sources here that follow WP:GNG. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns after looking through all of these: the San Diego Tribune only wrote three articles, of which two were about the first game; Soccer Today allows teams to request editorial coverage and it's difficult to tell if it's truly independent; the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun articles are simply reprints of the San Diego Tribune article; and the East Village Times appears to be a WordPress blog. That being said, I appreciate the research and some of these should be used to support the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you appreciate the research. Thanks! I'm not totally sure how to incorporate some of these into the article itself and would love some advice. As for East Village Times it is a Wordpress site (says so at the bottom) but I didn't think it failed WP:RS since it didn't appear to be a content farm or group blog. If I'm misunderstanding and it is, my mistake. It seems as though the website has been credentialed by other lower division sports in the city of San Diego for coverage as well. Thought it would make sense that a third division team in a major city would have to rely on coverage through smaller outlets, especially in the early going. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I please get that source on USL League One teams not paying players out of season? Also, I'm not sure bringing up the 5th tier in England is a fair comparison. Everything below Level 4 is considered "Non-Professional" and therefore would definitely not count. That comparison would fit in better if it was about an NPSL team season page or something but in this case the league in question falls under the same "professional" status in America as EPL Leagues One or Two do in England. Its a different team but back in April Detroit City FC CEO told the Detroit Metro Times that he and the team were "committed to paying a living wage" to players. Stumptown Athletic's President and CEO was interviewed by Charlotte's NPR affiliate and said The team budget for salaries will be in the range of $400,000 to $1 million annually which would make me think players and staff are getting paid year round. Finally, there was a bit in the NISA announcement for Atlanta SC that caught my eye that I'd love to discuss with you. In the announcement, the league explained how it was different from the franchise model that the "rest of American soccer" uses. In the fifth paragraph it says "NISA’s approach to its players sets it apart. Unlike other American soccer leagues, NISA clubs contract directly with their players and control their rights." If a team is controlling a player's rights, is it crazy to assume said team is paying year round to ensure said player is not using his talents elsewhere? If the team wasn't paying what control would they have over a players rights? Also, I'd love to try and find more WP:GNG sources and would love to hear your advice on possibly fixing this article rather than deleting it. Additionally, I tried to find precedent when making these pages. Back in 2011, when USL Pro began as a third division professional league in the U.S., the team season pages similarly had very few non-league sources ((CC: 2011 Charleston Battery season, 2011 Pittsburgh Riverhounds season, 2011 Los Angeles Blues season). If you look at quite a few of those 2011 season pages they seem to do the same thing. The same goes for USL1 teams from last year. The 2019 Lansing Ignite FC season page uses one source that fufills GNG and the rest are league affiliated. The same goes for the 2019 Greenville Triumph SC season and 2019 Toronto FC II season. I'm not sure how the article can follow GNG when the other U.S. D3 league seemingly does not either. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When they pay them is completely irrelevant. What matters is how much they pay them. They could give them their entire salary in a lump sum on January 1, or 1/365 of their salary every day, or anything in between, and it wouldn't change their professional status or lack thereof. Teachers at my old high school had the option of getting their salary throughout the year or getting paid more per paycheck but only during the school year. Their annual salaries were the same regardless of what they chose, it was just a matter of when they got their money. Were teachers who opted for the former option somehow more professional than those who opted for the latter option? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Plus as others have pointed out you have failed to provide a source on your claim. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which claim did I not source? Or are you commenting on SportingFlyer's comment? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am not sure you should be directing this comment at ColeTrain. User:SportingFlyer is the one who brought up when the players get paid and User:ColeTrain4EVER is just providing information about it for NISA and League One. I agree though, it ultimately doesn't matter. For this project, it doesn't matter when they get paid, as long as they are paid enough to basically make this their career. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say it was directed at ColeTrain? It should have been obvious it was directed at the remark by SportingFlyer that he was responding to. My apologies for the confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. GiantSnowman 12:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. This isn't a vote. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - PERNOM is an essay. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given NISA appears to be fully professional, and nobody has offered any real evidence otherwise, only uncited and irrelevant arguments about when players get paid, I am going to go ahead and assume the citations on WP:FPL are correct and that this meets WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one has offered any evidence that it is fully professional, either, apart from the fact the USSF has sanctioned it as a professional league, mostly because nobody's writing about this league at all. The only important element in this entire discussion is that the season fails WP:GNG - newspapers didn't even report on the league's individual games! SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we have provided these in the past, including independent sources which explain how teams like Detroit City FC and Chattanooga FC are paying all their players. I don't see what else more specific you need besides a dang list of each individual salary. Regarding the match reports, there are a few matches which didn't get much coverage but others which did such as:

Match 1: Oakland Roots Cal United
Fury Stumptown
San Diego Cal United
Miami Philadelphia
Miami FC Stumptown Athletic

By the way, would appreciate a response above. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What newspapers have covered New York Red Bulls II games consistently or any of the reserve teams in USL Championship? What newspaper covered Toronto FC II games? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColeTrain4EVER we do have to keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF in these discussions. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NISA appears to be fully professional and so meets our criteria. If you are paid, you are a professional. If you are not paid you are an amateur - that seems clear enough. Wm335td (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As long as NISA isn't properly listed at WP:FPL, it's irrelevant how professional it appears to be. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, no getting around that. However, there is currently a discussion ongoing in the WP:FPL talk page about the league and if it belongs on the project page at all (much like here is seems to be a split consensus). Do we think that will yield any result where this point be temporarily shelved? Once that's decided I feel like this page's fate will follow suit. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2020 (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.