Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WSA Winnipeg (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSA Winnipeg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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. Equally notable as other teams in its division. Radagast (talk) 23:42, 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no indication that the subject or consensus on club notability has changed significantly since the last afd. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria for inclusion has. WP:GNG and others. Please provide sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 29 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. Finally, this team plays in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- this nomination makes no sense. 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? The last AFD was pretty clear. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 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) 04:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The applicable notability standard for sports teams (and all other organizations) are WP:ORG and WP:GNG, which this subject easily satisfies with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in the western Canadian media. Here's a sample: [1]; there are so many articles from the Canadian media, I'm not even going to bother linking individual examples. Anyone interested can feel free to sort through the Google results. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 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.