Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma FC (2nd 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma FC[edit]

[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)

Club which doesn't meet either WP:FOOTYN or WP:CORPDEPTH. Was deleted four years ago, and the only thing which has really changed since that AfD was that their coach was chosen to coach an actually notable club. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to League1 Ontario as possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it does not meet the WP:FOOTYN essay guidelines, it does meet WP:GNG. Since the last AfD, there have been multiple non-trivial mentions in news articles from independent, reliable sources which have been added to the article. As a note, the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" to be useful as a source. I don't see any benefit in deleting this article as-is, but I would encourage it to be expanded further. BLAIXX 13:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The mentions are WP:ROUTINE sports coverage. Fails FOOTYN, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the below two examples are medium- to long-form news reporting which far exceeds "routine" sports coverage.

Local soccer academy has become playground for future stars
Sigma FC: Laying the groundwork for Canadian youth development

Also FOOTYN only states that "teams that have played in the national cup generally meet GNG" so I don't think that essay is enough to justify an article deletion (or redirection). BLAIXX 13:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – outside of BLPs, my guiding principles are WP:42 and WP:PAGEDECIDE, the most-relevant question for me being, "Is there enough RS to write a decent stand-alone about this?" In this case, I think yes. It just barely passes GNG, not with WP:THREE but with two: this article in the Toronto Star, and this two-part series in Red Nation (magazine): Part 1, Part 2. With those two sources, there's enough material to write an article. In addition, I found 13 pages of Google News results with routine coverage (game, transfer, and signing reports). All in all, it's enough to convince me that a stand alone article is warranted. Leviv ich 15:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established from the refs. Passes WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does contain independent sources just needs additional content. Shotgun pete (talk) 6:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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.