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. John254 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North York Astros[edit]

North York Astros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Currently does not meet WP:NN. no citations to back up the article at all. no references. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 03:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and because the article is being edited by the Assistant General Manager of the subject team per this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who edits an article isn't a reason to delete an article. It can have a bearing on the quality or the content, but we can't delete it just because of a possible COI violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Meets WP:NN. Citations in article, however you have been vandalizing the article by deleting the entries before all the citations could be completed.

I have been editting this article since creation which was by an entirely different WP person and in accordance with the fundamental principles of WP, that is to provide information to others, this article serves as information that otherwise would not be made available on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.64.156 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professional team playing in Canada's national league. Most, if not all, of the content of the article is verifiable by following the external link. Plenty of coverage of their games in the media. Even if the IP has a COI, the article is written from a neutral perspective. Tagging for refimprove would seem sufficient. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High level soccer team, clearly notable. Meets WP:NN, the correct action here is to fix the article. RxS (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The Astros are one of the teams which make up Canada's highest domestic soccer league, which makes them notable in itself. Also, I don't see how it's relevant that someone who works for the team has edited the article. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, team playing at the top level of Canadian football, obviously notable for that alone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My general rule of thumb is that any team who plays at or above a certain level within a country's organised football system is notable, regardless of their professional status. This team played at the top level within the Canadian league, and so in my view they are a notable team. Bettia (rawr!) 09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, play in highest league in Canada. As for there being no citations, I really don't think that this should be offered as a reason for deletion when the nominator themself appears to have reverted the addition of citations to the said article. WikiGull (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - play in the top level in Canada, definitely notable. GiantSnowman 12:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - was going to try and add some content then realised it's protected. This was requested by the nominator as part of the 'edit-war' which, appears to have concerned the adding of citations. This does seem an odd reason to request protection (and I have to say to revert the additions), unless in my absence wikipedia has now got a 'rule' about not adding citations to articles! Any admins care to comment, or better still fix this? WikiGull (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - take it to requests for page unprotection, WP:RUP. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. After review of the article, the clubs website and the 'edit war' it appears quite clear than Xenu took issue with the WP:COI and not the actual content of article. When efforts were made to introduce citations to the document, which is the real issue here, they were reverted. My opinion is that this is a personal issue between Xenu and the editor, and has nothing to do with the article. Introduce the citations and keep the article, Xenu can go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.9.26 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Poorly written, but is barely meets WP:N. Rewrite? -phobia don't be afraid to take my easy math quiz! 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I see the external link to support the information on the page. However due to the edit war and page lockdown that takes away the citations. It weakens the argument. But it's still pretty conclusive it's a keep. Govvy (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The citations issue needs to be addressed, but the topic is certainly notable. No indication this is a non-existent team. 23skidoo (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Can someone close this already? Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 29 November 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.