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. Whether to make different guidelines for different regions can be discussed in a broader discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD Aguiluchos USA[edit]

CD Aguiluchos USA (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Fourth division in the US is not like Europe. The players are all redlinks because they are not notable and only local coverage may exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's more important things to do on Wikipedia than witchhunt valid articles while condescendingly playing the eurosnob card. This article meets GNG because it receives local coverage and regional/national coverage by playing in a national league and in national tournaments. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have local coverage! It only has coverage from the league. Press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - playing in the top level amateur league in US/Canada is sufficient for notability. It's a national league. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that only fully professional leagues are notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would mean that we'd have no English articles lower than League 2 ... I think you may be thinking of season articles, not team articles. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The season articles lower than MLS are either not maintained or inconsistently edited. No, I'm thinking of team articles. Players who have not played in a fully professional league are not notable (unless they've played in the Olympics). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Played in national cup - 2016 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, meeting WP:FOOTYN for clubs. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the coverage in a non-local paper that they played in the 2016 cup? If it can be provided, I will gladly withdraw, but this logic is flawed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's flawed, is you are looking for a non-local paper, and ignoring the consensus that has been long-established around the subject. Nfitz (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the consensus, it makes sense for Europe and South America. In North America, fourth division is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Nfitz and long standing concensus supported by numerous AfDs, playing in a national competition (in this case the country's premier cup competition) is sufficient for notability. Agree with the comments above that the US fourth tier would not be inherently notable on its own since this competition, although national is organised into regional divisions, but the fact that this club has played in a fully national competition as a result of their performances in this league makes them more notable. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 11 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.