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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McGill Redmen Soccer[edit]

McGill Redmen Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Vanity article (only significant editor is clearly affiliated with the team), article makes no claim to notability, no verifiable secondary sources. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. A bit of material might be mergeable into McGill Redmen but I think the useful material is already there. PKT 13:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable biographical article. Merge if possible. Jordan ^Contribs 14:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete This is not a vanity article, but provides factual information about university level athletics. Also, editor is not necessarily affiliated with the team, but could be any university student. User:Protugal_Love 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal love (talk • contribs) [reply]

— Protugal_Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Do Not Delete I don't see what the problem is with the article. If you view external links there is a claim to notability. Further, none of the information presented seems to be subjective or contain normative statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alldaybaby (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Alldaybaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Keep per above. Black Tusk (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at worst merge to McGill Redmen. I don't see anything significantly wrong with the article and reliable, independent sources exist for the topic Google News. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The least someone could do is sort out the players' wikilinks. As it stands two of the current squad are long dead, one is a convicted mass murderer, and worse, one is a fashion designer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. DoubleBlue (Talk) 10:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no reason why McGill are less notable than any other QSSF team, or indeed any other university team. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bettia. GiantSnowman 15:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The point is that there are already articles about McGill Redmen and McGill Martlets. There is no call for a separate article about this year's Redmen soccer team. They're no more remarkable than their counterparts at the other universities. The most equitable treatment is to include a section about the soccer team and other varsity teams on the Redmen article. PKT 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with McGill Redmen. User:DoubleBlue and comment per User:PKT--ClubOranje^Talk 07:31, 14 October 2008 (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.