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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Albuquerque Sol FC season[edit]

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

A season article for an amateur soccer/football club seems overdone The Banner talk 12:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Consensus usually holds that a club must be playing in a fully-professional league to have an individual season article, which is not the case here. Furthermore fails WP:GNG. 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - This is a season article for a team competing in a league whose 63-teams widely cover the United States and Canada. This particular club's paid home attendance averaged over 900 in 2014 league play. Each match listed in the this article's league schedule table includes a reference to the official game report either on the United Soccer League's official site or elsewhere. References to major-market newspapers give specifics of the Sol's inaugural season. In general support of Premier Development League clubs meeting the notability standard for inclusion of season articles, note that 16 PDL clubs currently earn a berth in the annual 68-team Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. If only for the sake of comparing the season performance of MLS, NASL, and USL Pro clubs against semi-pro PDL competition (where not infrequently the PDL side will advance) PDL season pages are a useful addition to Wikipedia. Gatomasgordo (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and playing in a minor league = not fully profesional. Kante4 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-referenced with sources, demonstrating the topic meets WP:GNG. If only similar articles for the umpteenth level of English football were as well referenced! Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The USL PDL league includes fully pro teams as well as teams that are a mixture of amateur and pro players. Also, as Nfitz points out, many English football teams at the amateur level have season pages (For example: 2012–13_Aldershot_Town_F.C._season). USL PDL teams frequently play sanctioned matches against higher level pro teams in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, while teams at a lower level on the U.S. soccer pyramid do not. Sativasativa (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. It is pity that you discredit your own comments by stating that the professional club Aldershot Town F.C. is an amateur club. The Banner talk 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, mr. Sativa. I do not have the idea that your are a genuine editor, so I inform you of this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatomasgordo. The Banner talk 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- [[File:|25px|link=]] doh! Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the case that I know user SativaSativa outside of Wikipedia, and have encouraged him to become a Wiki contributor. I did also tell him today that the 2014 Albuquerque Sol article I created has been nominated for deletion. I did not, however, supply him with arguments or actively recruit his participation in this deletion discussion. He and I have both acted in good faith. Gatomasgordo (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no need for the rudeness, Mr. Banner. Clearly I am not as well versed on the topic as you are, but I was simply trying to make a case that a team on a similar pyramid level in the English system has season pages. Aldershot just came up first in my search because they are the first alphabetically. I'm sure if I dug around enough I could find more season pages for other teams on that level that are not fully professional. Obviously I don't edit the Wikipedia much, but that doesn't make my opinion invalid. I don't see any reason why this season page should be deleted. Sativasativa (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - A sockpuppet investigation is not rude, although it is a harsh method. But let the technical whizz-kids do their research and based on their result we can tell who was rude. The Banner talk 21:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So I've been doing some reading, trying to get up to speed with the topic, and I finally found this article from the Football WikiProject: WP:FOOTYN which has notability criteria for football players, clubs, and leagues, but not for season pages. Does the same notability criterion apply for season pages as applies to the clubs themselves? If not, I think it should actually be spelled out on that page to avoid confusion like this in the future. Sativasativa (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NSEASONS. It says "articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." The league is not a fully professional league. Kingjeff (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — looks like it does indeed fail WP:NSEASONS as the league the team resides in, USL Premier Development League, is apparently an amateur-level league, not a professional one. --slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 3 October 2014 (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.