Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caledonia SC

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 redirect to USL League Two. I find the first keep has been adequately rebutted, and the second makes no argument whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia SC

[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)

The only two sources here are press releases and I can't find others. Doesn't seem to be notable in the slightest. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Florida. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As you said, article does have sources. Notability is rather subjective criterion. As I said in earlier change comment, this article is one of 100s of articles for semi-professional teams in America. Most of other teams do have similar stub pages, and this one is correctly marked as a stub.

Ђидо (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ђидо: On Wikipedia, "notable" means something different than it does elsewhere. It refers to the amount of independent coverage a topic has received from reliable sources. Although at times it can be a little ambiguous, for the most part, it is not a subjective criterion here: the coverage either exists or it doesn't. In this case, both sources in the article are a single press release distributed by United Soccer League: not independent, and therefore not contributing to notability. All the other sources I could find were event announcements, routine statistical coverage, and the club's own websites; not significant, and therefore don't contribute to notability. Merely "having sources" is not sufficient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about notability on Wikipedia here. I suggest you do; it is the backbone of deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notable. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your single-word assertion that the subject is notable isn't in the least bit useful. If you can actually provide a couple of independent sources providing significant coverage of this club, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League Two. No significant coverage that I can find. Giant Snowman 19:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League Two due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The argument that other similar articles exist doesn't help the notability of this one. I did a search and turned up no significant coverage, and frankly I bet many of those other articles wouldn't turn up significant coverage either. Still it is a plausible search term, so I think a redirect is preferable to deletion. Jay eyem (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2022 (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.