Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada men's national intercrosse team (3rd nomination)

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. Not enough discussion to merit a third relist. A Train^talk 09:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada men's national intercrosse team[edit]

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

A quick google search finds no reliable sources that indicate this subject passes the general notability guideline. The last two AfDs have been closed as no consensus with neither having received any !votes. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As senior national teams in an international sport, they easily satisfy notability guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
National teams have to satisfy WP:GNG as much as any other article. Notability isn't inherited. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 26 September 2016 (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.