Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Whitecaps FC Residency

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. Redirect if and when necessary, if required. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Whitecaps FC Residency[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - junior league and no claim to notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Vancouver Whitecaps FC dumping a lot of the pointless player lists. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a youth league, or even a league at all. And it's not a local affiliate of a national organization. It's a development academy. If nominator thinks development academies are not notable, he can say so, but no accurate reason was offered. I agree with Fenix down that redirect is preferable to delete, but I think keep is preferable to both. Smartyllama (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. Article in its current state lacks references but it's trivially easy to turn up many on Google. A Train^talk 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I largely echo the above. This has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a youth league and youth leagues are not notable. The problem is that it is not a youth league, so the nominator's criterion does not apply. The other criterion "individual chapters of national and international organisations are usually not considered notable" also does not apply as this is neither an individual chapter of an organisation - it is a significant element of the organisation itself, and not a chapter in any way - nor is Vancouver Whitecaps a "national or international organisation". The nominator has recommended this for deletion on the grounds that this program is like your local branch of the Scouts, or the Scouts' local Saturday football league, but that is a substantial misunderstanding of that this article is about. Since the nominator's criteria for deletion can be seen to not apply, I'm not sure what case this AfD has to answer. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:25, 5 September 2016 (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.