Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Bay Voyageurs FC

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Voyageurs FC

[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 independently notable. Does not play for league cup. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a newly announced team which has received some local coverage. [1] [2] [3]. This is at worst a WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League Two WP:GNG not clearly demonstrated and doesn't pass WP:FOOTYN. Prior consensus at this level is mixed, but FOOTYN states that a club should play on a national level or in a national cup to have a presumption of notability. Jay eyem (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team currently plays for the league (USL League Two) cup. This year they are eligible for the next year's U.S. Open Cup. Do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny cide (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So perhaps when they 1) do play for the US Open cup, we can write an article about them from 2) all the press that generates. For now, they do not meet NFOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is for players and FOOTYN is a rough guideline, not a SNG. This is a fresh team which received decent local coverage about their name announcement only four days ago and will play their first game in four months, have received local coverage in multiple media markets, and received some good press about their announcement back in October. [4] [5] If this is deleted, we'll just have to remake it in three months. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the notability criteria. We may not have to recreate it if (and only if) they do get local coverage. If a subject is only of local interest, and has had WP:SUSTAINED coverage, not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill or "local team played" sort of coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USL League Two is a national league and its teams do compete in the U.S. Open Cup. No good reason to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the good reasons are that USL League Two is a development soccer league, not a professional league and this team has not yet competed for the US Open Cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which are pedantic and ignore the independent secondary sources this team which hasn't played a game has received already. Most but not all teams in the league have articles, and this one already has better sourcing than several I've selected at random. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they don't deserve an article, we can address that separately per WP:OSE. If they meet a notability criteria, we keep the article. We don't keep articles because they may meet notability criteria one day. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - They already meet notability criteria. For the sake of argument, if they don't, they will very shortly. Other reliable coverage can be found at [6] and [7]. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure that USL League Two is a "national" competition in that same way that the other leagues are. It's kind of more akin to the German Regionalliga, except they do have a final "national" tournament at the end of the year instead of having pro/rel. Plus it isn't an officially sanctioned league. Jay eyem (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, team is eligible to play in the national cup, thereby meeting standard notability for soccer clubs. GiantSnowman 08:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: You read that incorrectly. They may be eligible to play in the national cup. There is no guarantee that they will ever play for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - They play at a level where teams are eligible, do they not? GiantSnowman 15:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GiantSnowman: Only the top teams at this level attain eligibility every year and most fold before they even finish above the lower half of their own division. What does the criteria say, that they may one day play or that they "have played in the national cup"?. The second half of the criteria clearly does not match the first half. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, if they meet WP:GNG, it doesn't matter where they play, who they play, or when they play them. SportingFlyer T·C 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sort of. Both the USL League Two and National Premier Soccer League get about a dozen entrants each automatically, and its up to them to decide who they send through. Since it is a regional league (except for an end of year playoff for both), they usually send the champion of each region through to the U.S. Open Cup. It's not an automatic qualification like the DFB Pokal uses for its amateur teams, but it is something. Contrast this to the professional leagues, where every team gets an automatic entrance. Jay eyem (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This team is playing in a national league within the US system and has already generated enough coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Borgarde (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would those arguing that they play in a national league provide support for their arguments? Not only is the USL League Two not recognized by the USSF, but the way that the league operates is much more similar to a regional league, something similar to college basketball and the NCAA Tournament, or to Germany's Regionalliga. There's nothing really national about the league's structure other than the end of season playoffs, and I really don't think that qualifies the league as national. Jay eyem (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Closing admin, please recognize that the majority of survey responses have been WP:MEETOO statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jay eyem: Out of pure curiosity, could you provide a link showing it's not recognised by the USSF? I would argue playing in this league would not lend itself to presumptive notability, but absolutely agree with Borgarde's "has already generated enough coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia." SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's... really sort of a separate issue, but ok. I'd like to start by noting that ussoccer.com has done a very poor job of posting this information clearly on their website (granted, I only skimmed the bylaws). The closest thing that I have seen so far is this link about the upcoming Open Cup: "They will be joined by the six eligible members of the newly-sanctioned Division III professional circuit, USL League One." It doesn't say anything about sanctioning for USL League Two, which this team is in. I disagree that there is significant coverage for this team already. It certainly is not readily apparent in the article. Only really the statements made by USL League Two and Forward Madison really approach significant coverage. I recognize that the consensus on this particular issue is a bit of a grey area, but I really don't see a strong reason this article needs to be kept. Jay eyem (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious on the sanctioning since I don't know why it wouldn't be sanctioned. I also don't know why you're discarding several feature stories as insignificant. Anyways, if the closer deletes this, I would ask that a draft version be placed in my user area so I can restore this in a couple months. SportingFlyer T·C 03:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think that is a ridiculously low barrier for entry for meeting "significant" coverage. So a new local amateur sports team gets a feature in a local publication and a local television channel. Big whoop. By contrast, a statement from a league the size of USL League Two and from its owners (which happen to be a professional team playing on a national level) I would consider to be significant. I still don't really think that's enough personally, since the articles are basically just "here's another new team". The only thing that gives me pause is precisely the fact that it is USL League Two (the same would apply for NPSL), because they do get this handful of automatic qualifiers whereas other amateur leagues do not. That's why I see it as a bit of a grey area. Jay eyem (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted. This is a trigger happy nomination for a club that meets the GNG, there is enough coverage out there to warrant this article. The argument to a closing admin saying it's METOO is also incorrect seeing as rationale was given in each point. If this page is deleted it will just be restored very soon as the league season starts as interest gets higher, wasting everyone's time more already. The league is sanctioned by USASA and not USSF as it is not a fully professional league as the US system works a bit differently to other countries, which means it is still a sanctioned league. Borgarde (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FOOTYN: "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." I very much disagree that the notability criteria is met. However, there is a bit of a gap in FOOTYN regarding club notability. This is a good example because teams that are assumed to be notable have either played in the national cup or played on the national level. This team fits neither of those. However, they are "eligible" in the sense that literally (/s) any amateur team in the United States can compete their way into the Open Cup. This is also further bolstered by the fact that USL League Two and NPSL are treated as being at a higher level for amateur leagues, being granted automatic spots in the Open Cup. Again, this is why it's a grey area. Jay eyem (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, a guideline. It's not met here, but it doesn't really matter anyways (see the large number of Thai amateur clubs at AfD we've had recently) and doesn't trump WP:GNG. If this were sourced to league press releases - and some teams in this league are - I wouldn't be a keep vote. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep topics meets WP:GNG. I'll work on expanding the article here soon, there is enough coverage (including sources mentioned above) to warrant an article. Especially in the coming months the topic should continue to receive greater coverage. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2019 (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.