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. Consensus since the improvement to the article mid way through the AFD is that the article does meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Flames[edit]

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

It is a defunct soccer club from canada and to short for notability in my opinion. Abani79 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Whereas it appears to have being in a professional league thus meeting WP:NFOOTY it doesn't meet WP:GNG which takes precidenceSeasider91 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on, there's no 'precedence', as I recall; it only has to pass either the general or the specific to qualify as notable. However, some source that notes that they actually existed would make this article a bit more worthwhile. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG as a guideline should take precedence over WP:FOOTYN which is only an essay.--Charles (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the claim of being a top-level soccer team - defunct or not - is strong, but unfortunately there is nothing to verify the claim, so we muct delete. Nothing on Google. Giant Snowman 11:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been improved - good work! - and now I'm happy it's notable. Giant Snowman 08:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is deleted I think they will be the only club referred to in the Canadian Soccer League not to have an article. League Octopus (League Octopus 13:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

An indication that they existed in 2003 - Canadian Premier Soccer League 2003 - RSSSF. League Octopus (League Octopus 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Durnam Flames did have a website - refer archived durhamflames.com but unfortunately did not complete a history section. It is possible to establish that Steve Hamill was the Head Coach and the team line-up in 2003. Some estimated 6,000 fans attended this match on 30 May 2003. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Still fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Delete Upon closer search, a source (the website of durham lords) confirmed a fact that the club existed, however, there are only weak hints above the former head coach Stan Bombino - at that time he was head coach at the Durham Flames, he is now head coach at the Durham College Lords. Thus, the deletion request could of course be withdrawn. But it is hard to understand something of it, if an item does not have any evidence and has maybe three sentences that can not be proven. Maybe a relevant excerpt or maybe even a second source: http://www.durhamlords.com/varsity/ms/coaches.htm Abani79 (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The existing article was very weak and I can understand why it was put forward for deletion. I have spent some valuable time undertaking a complete re-write and hope that this addresses your concerns.Rocket Robin is a most unusual source but nevertheless contains a wealth of information including copies of press articles. There is a lot of potential to improve the articles of other clubs who currently or previously competed in the Canadian Soccer League. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Yeah the article looks better now, you've made a very good work with the additions. If everyone else agrees that we should keep the article and it now meets the WP:GNG, the deletion request may of course be removed. Abani79 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets GNG following the addition of a number of sources. Eldumpo (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the additional sources means that article probably meets the general notability guideline. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 10:57, 3 July 2012 (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.