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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The article seems to have undergone substantial changes during the discussion, but with disagreement on whether those were enough to demonstrate notability. Several keep arguments referenced invalid rationales such as "other stuff exists" or inherited or inherent notability. A new discussion focused entirely on analysis of the sources might be able to better generate consensus. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 04:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Team does not play in a professional league and has not played in the national cup so fails WP:FOOTYN and clearly fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no requirement to play in a professional league, and with a quick Google search bringing back coverage like this and this, and given the fact they play in a notable league, I'd say the club is notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The professional league is not a requirement, but it sure would help to get better coverage, while the references you've pointed to are WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League TwoWP:GNG not demonstrated, and having not played in a professional league or in the national cup, the article fails WP:FOOTYN. It's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap, so a redirect would be appropriate. Jay eyem (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The professional league requirement only applies to players, not the clubs themselves. Also, meets WP:GNG per the sources from GiantSnowman. Smartyllama (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the ROUTINE coverage supplied? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except that the team is not eligible to play in the national cup either, beyond existing in League Two, which really is not sufficient. Plus League Two is a set of regional leagues with a national playoff, not to mention not sanctioned by USSF. How exactly is a profile for one of the team's players and a "local roundup" of sports in the area sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG for this team? Jay eyem (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the team not eligible to play in the cup? I see no reason why that would be the case. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2016, lower-division clubs owned by higher-division professional clubs are no longer eligible to participate in the U.S. Open Cup, but it does not seem as though a professional team owns this amateur team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that only applies to the professional teams like Orlando City B in League One or Bethlehem Steel FC in the Championship. That's why you still see NYRB U-23s and South Georgia Tormenta FC 2 in the competition. I don't think this particular criteria is relevant for this discussion, though. Jay eyem (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because the only teams that get automatic entry into the Open Cup are American teams in professional leagues. NPSL and League Two do get some automatic spots, but there is no guarantee for any of those teams to be eligible. Unless you think that literally every team in America should have a Wikipedia article, because literally any team can compete in local Open Cup Qualifying, I don't see a strong justification in that regard for keeping an article. That is an obscenely low bar, and still doesn't address the notability concerns. Jay eyem (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Jay. This team does not meet GNG. This source spends more column-inches on routine rugby and basketball games than it does on the soccer cup win. This one is about a player, not the team; only a few sentences are about the team. I can't find anything better. Redirects are cheap, though, and if someone found some additional sources to meet GNG and write a decent article, the redirect can be expanded into an article again. Levivich 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some further references to the article. Researching back to their 2007 and 2008 seasons, I seem to see some older stories, but my newspapers.com subscription has lapsed - can anyone else access? In particular there seems to be articles that may be relevant on page 14 of the March 16, 2007 The Salinas Californian, and possibly later editions. In addition they played in the qualifying round of the 2008 U.S. Open Cup. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As far as I can tell, the known sources are the two GS posted here that I commented on above, and this blog. I appreciate rescue efforts but for me, those three sources don't satisfy GNG. Levivich 02:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until further notice I'm not entirely sure on this article, I know AfD is a pretty much yes or no debate, but this is probably one of the first that I can't fully decide. It's got the notability, as it is a real team that actually plays football, however, it does not seem to have a teamsheet...so, I'll just say, keep it for the time being, but if it does not get any significant updates, then send it back to AfD. Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've seen a keep !vote with the rationale that is essentially "because I can't find any sources to support notability". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By my count, Wikipedia has 70 articles about USL League Two teams. To me this is a clear indication that there is consensus that such teams are inherently notable enough to have articles. I realize this may come across as a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but it's really a WP:OTHERNOTABLESTUFFEXISTSSOTHISSHOULDTOO argument. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE I would be happy to nominate any of the 70 articles about other non-notable teams in that league. We could probably bundle many with this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's consider all of those 70 to be bundled into this discussion and have the outcome here apply to them all. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way. They either have to be listed here or they're not included in the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who expressed a desire to "bundle many with this discussion". But if now you're saying it doesn't work that way, then don't do it. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This literally is an WP:OSE argument, could you clarify your argument using a different argument, perhaps addressing the notability concerns? Jay eyem (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay eyem: It's quite distinct from an OSE argument. The long term existence of so many articles about equivalent topics (members of the group of USL League Two teams) establishes a consensus that there is notability, or even Wikipedia:Inherent notability, of members of the group. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not perceiving the difference between the argument you're making (the long term existence of other similar articles establishes consensus that there is notability) and WP:OSE. Aside from everything else, one 4th-tier team can be notable while another 4th-tier team is not. Why should we treat them all the same? – Levivich 16:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you actually dig into the AfD conversations regarding this specific topic (i.e. US fourth tier soccer teams that have never played in the Open Cup), you'd see that there is very little consensus and very rarely are arguments made that are backed by policy. And I vehemently disagree that these teams in inherently notable, many fold after a few seasons, never to be seen or heard from again. Jay eyem (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage both in the article and in other articles such as [1] and [2]. Needs a bit of a rewrite though. SportingFlyerT·C 23:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think significant means something different for you than most. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a horribly low bar for inclusion. One is an article about the team wanting to help players become professional, the other is a WP:ROUTINE announcement of a new team. How does this constitute significant coverage? Jay eyem (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles address the topic "directly and in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." SportingFlyerT·C 13:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very much disagree that they address the topic directly and in detail, I think Levivich has done an excellent job with source analysis so far to demonstrate otherwise. Jay eyem (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you disagree. Especially with the new newspaper articles in the article, I think WP:GNG is clearly met. SportingFlyerT·C 05:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And again, Levivich has already addressed the sources in the article in their source analysis below. If you are arguing WP:GNG, it would be helpful to refute their arguments. Jay eyem (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be appreciated if those arguing that the article does meet WP:GNG would explain how it does so. At the moment, the only users I have seen really addressing the notability concerns in detail are myself and Levivich. My concern is that all of the sources are either WP:ROUTINE or don't actually address the notability of the subject, either because they aren't in-depth coverage or because they don't actually address the subject in question e.g. addressing a particular player. At the moment the sourcing feels woefully insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and the fact that the team exists and plays in USL2 is really weak grounds for inclusion. Jay eyem (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I second what Jay eyem wrote just above. Better policy-based arguments are needed to keep this article, at this point the "delete" !votes have the better arguments , even though they are in a numerical minority.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis – Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these are all the sources in the AfD and the article brought forward so far:
Register-Pajaronian #1 (GS's 2nd, ref 2 in the article): 4 sentences, which are: ... Santa Cruz Breakers FC inaugural Premier Development League (PDL) soccer team, which is set to play its first home match on Saturday at Cabrillo College at 7:30 p.m. against the San Francisco Glens SC ... None of the players on the Breakers are being paid. The Breakers, coached by UC Santa Cruz head coach Michael Runeare, are one of 74 teams in the PDL. They play in the Southwest Division. The rest of the article is about a player, the league, and college soccer in America generally.
Midfield Press (ref 1 in the article): apparent blog/WP:SPS[3], not an WP:RS, routine new-team announcement/interview
Register-Pajaronian #2 (SF's 1st): in my opinion, this is the best one yet, and counts as WP:SIGCOV, but one SIGCOV is not enough
Front Row Soccer (SF's 2nd): a blog/SPS, not an RS [4], routine new-team coverage
I still think redirect is the best outcome here. If more SIGCOV is written, the redirect can be expanded back out into an article. As for the WP:OSE argument above, I've never looked at the notability of 3rd- and 4th-tier American teams; it's possible there are others that should be turned into redirects to the league. Levivich 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another source brought forward in the discussion above is the article on page 14 of the March 16, 2007 The Salinas Californian, for which I couldn't access and have not opined on whether it meets WP:GNG or just provides a reference for some older information not otherwise referenced. I also noted the teams participation in the 2008 U.S. Open Cup qualification which does raise whether or not it meets WP:FOOTYN. I feel that more research could be done. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I type in "Santa Cruz Breakers" into Newspapers.com, I get 800+ hits, the earliest one is from 1879 (... put your hands over your eyes, and shake the brine of the Santa Cruz breakers from off your bathing dress). From a quick review, all of the coverage of the modern soccer team seems to be routine reporting of game scores in local papers. With regards to the specific story in the Salinas Californian on March 16, 2007, you can read the OCR text here (click on "Show 14 article text (OCR)"), and the only mention of the team is On May 26 and June 2, the Santa Cruz Breakers make their debut in Salinas, followed by visits from the Colorado Crimson on June 9 and the Denver Kickers on June 10. The final two home games are against Real San Jose FC on June 23 and the Sacramento Knights on July 8. Also, I thought NFOOTY doesn't apply to teams, and it's WP:NTEAM instead, which just says teams must meet GNG? --Levivich 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah typo - WP:FOOTYN - which is of course an essay. I raise it because comments above because the comments above about US Open Cup participation since 2016 ignore that they participated historically. While those articles you've found, don't seem to establish that the team meets GNG, they do provide references for unreferenced facts in the article and could be used to improve it. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that redirect confused me for a long time, too. I don't know why we still have it. As I understand it, FOOTYN was replaced by NFOOTY some time ago. – Levivich 00:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after I looked for recent sources a few days ago, I noticed that an article was recently published about this team, which I've added to the article. Seems to help it meet GNG - also notes they are semi-professional. I suspect there are further sources available about the earlier iteration of the team, if one had the means to find them. Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The May 10, 2019 article ("aims to send players to the pros") is Register-Pajaronian #2 in my list above. The 2008 article I'd say is more coverage of a player than SIGCOV of the team. I agree these all meet WP:V and could be used as sources in the article, but in my opinion only one of them is SIGCOV and thus the article doesn't (yet) meet GNG. – Levivich 00:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't spotted that someone had mentioned that recent article here 2 days ago. Given that it was an arguable keep in the eyes of many before that source was found (or even published), I'm not sure how that isn't easily pushing it over the line. I'm also not convinced that a full examination of a lot of hard-to-find sources over the last 12-13 years wouldn't find other similar articles. If only people would spend as much effort into trying improve articles, rather than remove borderline content! Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every stand-alone page is one more page for the watchlist, one more page for the page feeds, one more to patrol for vandalism, to transclude a template onto, to put on an AWB list, etc. etc. WP:NOTPAPER is followed by a bunch of other WP:NOTs like WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, so we have a notability guideline to help resolve that age-old tension between wanting to include all notable things but not everything. We don't have a WP:SNG here, so the way to resolve it is WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth sources. So far, we have one. At bottom, that means that, in all the years of this team's existence, if they've only been the subject of in-depth coverage once, then they're not notable enough for a stand-alone page. The single in-depth source was from less than two weeks ago, suggesting this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON–even though they've been around a while, perhaps they're just now becoming notable. Maybe they'll do well this year and more in-depth sources will be written, establishing that they have become notable. Maybe somebody will go through the archives and find another example of WP:SIGCOV. In any event, a redirect to the league isn't "erasing" them from the encyclopedia, it's just saying they don't meet the notability guidelines we've established for stand-alone pages, and the redirect can easily be expanded any time we have the sourcing. – Levivich 04:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too many articles on the watch list - that's almost sounding like WP:OWNERSHIP to me! A 13-year old article for a team in its 5th semi-pro season is too soon? It sounds to me like you are just throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick ... or is it WP:LASTWORD. Time to WP:MOVEON! Nfitz (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too many articles on a watchlist sounds like an active editor to me. You might want to look through Wikipedia:WikiFauna. A team in its (check your grammar) should definitely have more than routine and local coverage. Thanks for sealing the article's fate with that tidbit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about we stick to assuming good faith here, hmmm? I very much agree with Levivich and think that the Register-Pajaronian article is the only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV, but I fail to see how this is sufficient for inclusion as a standalone article. The age of an article is absolutely no guarantee that the subject is notable, and purely based on the criteria set out at WP:FOOTYN it could be argued that it is WP:TOOSOON since the team has not played at the national level or in the national cup. Jay eyem (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The County Breakers folded prior to the 2009 season. This is a different team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Both teams are from the same athletic club. This article was created in 2006 - it certainly didn't cover the 2018 team when it was created in 2006! It's also the same pitch, and even the same coach in 2007 as in 2018 (and presumably in 2019 too). Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So are they the same team or two different teams from the same club? Why does the article point to a reference that states "The Breakers would fold prior to the 2009 season"? The article does not state that this is a phoenix club. There do not seem to be sources that state that this is a continuation of the former club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear from the sources that the Santa Cruz Breakers - sometimes, called the Santa Cruz County Breakers - are an athletic club with soccer teams at various levels including the semi-professional, and it's existence has been continuous. This is quite normal for athletic clubs in the USA. What's unusual here is decade-long gap at the highest level. The text could be improved to better reflect this ... I wish everyone who edited at the AFD put as much work forth at improving the article! Nfitz (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nfitz, its not at all clear. It appears that the two teams appear are distinct: the one operated until 2009 and the new team—the one we are discussing here—is not discussed and has never played in the cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also as an aside, playing in a qualifying round of a cup is the same as playing in the cup itself. If the argument here is that it meets WP:FOOTYN because of that, it's still insufficient. And Nfitz please stop with the snide remarks and keep things WP:CIVIL for this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The play itself is not the question. That was a different team. That team folded. Go write an article about them. This team is not that team and this team does not merit an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure User:Walter Görlitz what you mean the article is only about another team. The article says, in the first sentence that Founded in 1992, the team played in the National Premier Soccer League (NPSL) in 2007 and 2008 - and the article has said similar since around 2007. How are we only discussing the recent seasons here - surely the notability of the 2007/2008 team is also important. I'm not sure how you've turned this into a discussion that is trying to ignore 2007 and 2008 - which was all that was discussed in the article as it existed from 2006 to until the May 20, 2018 edits. Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a reliable source. It's not that I'm trying to ignore 2007–08, I'm trying to find sources that state they are the same team. The source you added to the lede you modified discuss the earlier team, but there are also sources that state that team folded. The new sources do not make it clear that this is a continuation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? I'm not aware than any of the references listed are unreliable sources. In particulary this one from early 2018 says that Since their founding in 1992, Santa Cruz has been one of the top youth clubs in the country. In 2007 and 2008, the Breakers were members of the NPSL and that they will relaunch an adult first team, but this time in the USL’s PDL. The club's website discusses the 1992 founding, and links to the current Breakers FC team. I'm not sure how there's any doubt it's the same organization, that has been in continuous operation for 25 years. Yes, the article could be improved - especially the wording. But it needs improvement, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the article says" and then quoted the Wikipedia article. I was addressing that statement.
The club was a youth club. This article is about the senior mens side. This helps with the understanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good case that the article should be further clarified and improved. However that's not grounds for deletion. Perhaps we should all improve the article more, rather than debating further here. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two Register-Pantojan sources seem to be enough to me to get it over GNG, even without the other sources provided. It's clearly notable in my mind. If it meets GNG, it doesn't matter whether it meets FOOTYN. Smartyllama (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated source analysis – two more sources have been added to the article in addition to the five listed above.
6. Last Word in Sports (ref 5 in the article now) assuming this group blog counts as an RS [5], three sentences about the team, which are: Prior to the 2007 NPSL season, the Santa Cruz County Breakers joined the league, igniting a rivalry within the Central Coast. The Breakers finished their inaugural 2007 season third in the Northwest Conference and their 2008 season second in the conference. The Breakers would fold prior to the 2009 season.
7. USL (ref 7 in the article) does not mention the Breakers at all. – Levivich 14:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken an interest in this AfD for some time, but probably won't be able to edit this page again unless it gets relisted again. I would like to point out that Levivich has done excellent analysis of the sources presented in this AfD and the article itself, and the responses have either not addressed the arguments that they are presenting, or are just a reiteration of calling the article notable and the sources sufficient without otherwise demonstrating their reasoning. I hope this critique of the sources will be addressed beyond latching onto the one source that approaches SIGCOV. Jay eyem (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2019 (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.