Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velox Valhallians

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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC Rugby[edit]

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

Articles about local teams with no claim to notability, each does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NRU or WP:ORG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Included:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose — Seattle Saracens meets the notability criteria at WP:RU. Quite easily in fact. I don't know how anyone familiar with the club would think otherwise. Seattle regularly contributes multiple players to the U.S. national team, has played in top-level U.S. domestic competitions, and is a frequent subject of coverage by the U.S. rugby media. I'm not going to go through each club listed here, but you get the point. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Barryjjoyce. Meraloma has been on the go since the 1920s as well!-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 02:06, 15 January 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.