Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aux Field 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 delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aux Field FC[edit]

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

A two-year old indoor soccer team in a non-noteable indoor league. Fails to meet WP:GNG Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. This is apparently a youth club (or team) with no significant third-party coverage as shown by google and DuckDuckGo searches. The team's twitter page has only a few entries and nothing since March 2016, https://twitter.com/realauxfield. The article states that the club's big rival is Petting Zoo, FC. There is a picture from the Petting Zoo FC twitter page at the bottom of the Aux Field FC twitter page. Clearly, these are youth players. Neither club shows up in a perusal of youth leagues in the Bellevue area, which would suggest these clubs are recreational teams of some sort, not even shown to be participants in a sanctioned outdoor league. As such, the team/club would need to meet general notability requirements, which it doesn't. It doesn't even seem to have a web page, at least one that I could find in my searches. Other youth clubs in Bellevue at least have such pages. By contrast to the lack of coverage, or at least lack of presence on the web, of this team/club, a search for Rush FC or Rush Soccer, the largest youth soccer club in the world, gets hits from the first page. There is no Wikipedia article on the Rush club and I am not suggesting there should be one, but the contrast between a club or team with no coverage, not even its own web page, and a large club that has expanded to many cities and even foreign countries is obvious. For the record in case of any suggestion that this could be a prominent pro or semi-pro team, one can view the lists of teams in the fully professional leagues (Major League Soccer, North American Soccer League or United Soccer League} and the top semi-pro/amateur leagues (Premier Development League, American Soccer League (2014)) in the United States and will find that this club is not listed, as one would expect. At most, this article appears to be a vanity or promotional page for a youth recreational team which is not notable by any criterion. It should be deleted. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2017 (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.