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. Meets GNG, whilst some of the links posted contain links to articles about specific matches, there are clearly elements there which go beyond this indicating the club as an entity has garnered a reasonable level of coverage in mexican media. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titanes de Saltillo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The club fails WP:FOOTYN as they did not compete in national cup of Mexico throughout their two years of competing. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the Serie A de México, the same level that teams are eligible to compete in the national cup. There is consensus at WP:FOOTBALL that that is sufficient. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serie A de México. We need at least one secondary source to write an article, don't we? What I'm finding are primary source game reports. – Levivich 01:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, see the articles written on the team here: [1] and general articles: [2] [3] (which doesn't bode well, I can't find any evidence they played after mid-2017.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think the need for secondary sources (WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...) applies just as much to team articles as to bios. Unless I missed something, all I'm seeing are contemporaneous game reports, reports of an award, reports of a default... these all seem like primary sources. The "source trifecta" is reliable, independent, secondary. WP:NTEAM points to WP:GNG, and GNG says at least two sources that meet the trifecta. Here, I'm not seeing even one. – Levivich 15:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not primary - they're periodicals which have covered the team. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that newspaper reporting on current events (i.e., such-and-such team won by so many points and so-and-so scored a goal) = primary source – Levivich 19:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard in a deletion discussion. All newspapers cover current events. By that logic, none of them can be used to meet GNG. That's absurd. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the first time you're seeing this argument made? May I introduce to you WP:PRIMARYNEWS, part of the explanatory supplement WP:Identifying and using primary sources. Anyway, that reporting by newspapers is primary doesn't mean everything written by newspapers is primary. – Levivich 21:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in case it wasn't obvious by my response above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 16 September 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.