Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-W United 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K-W United FC[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just as notable as the other teams in its league, none of which seem to have been nominated for deletion; is the current reigning league champion. Radagast (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. GiantSnowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Also, this team plays in Canada, not the US. Are you sure you know what you're discussing here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every team in this league is notable.--Coppercanuck (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this nomination makes no sense in light of the clear consensus in previous attempts of deletions of Canadian USPDL teams. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles. But teams? Teams at this level easily meet WP:GNG with numerous examples, such as [1]. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin. Please note that this user has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note that the claim that the claim that no guideline or policy has been used in favour of keeping is false, as WP:GNG is a guideline that was used in favour of keeping the article. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing Nfitz. That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2015 (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.