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 redirect to National Premier Soccer League. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zanesville Athletic FC[edit]

Zanesville Athletic FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Originally PRODed, with argument being "team that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, also fails WP:FOOTYN". PROD removed without explanation. I know that the notability of these kinds of teams is sort of a grey area, but the team never appeared in the Open Cup and has no coverage to demonstrate that it is notable. Jay eyem (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to National Premier Soccer League as possible search term. GiantSnowman 08:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPSL teams are notable as they are eligible to participate in the USOC. That the club chose not to is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They aren't eligible to participate because they no longer exist. Thus under WP:FOOTYN they need to be shown to meet broader notability criteria. One of the reasons that articles like this are usually maintained is precisely the fact they still have the opportunity to participate in the Open Cup. The fact that a semi-pro team existed, never made the Open Cup, and then ceased to be means that it needs to meet those other notability standards, which hasn't been demonstrated. I actually agree with GiantSnowman, I think a redirect would also be proper. Jay eyem (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not temporary. If they were eligible to participate, they were notable, and if they were notable then, then they're still notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Except they were not notable then, and that isn't what WP:FOOTYN or WP:NTEMP say. There is no assumption under FOOTYN of notability for semi-pro teams that never made the domestic cup and then ceased operations (in fact examples to the contrary include this and this). WP:NTEMP still requires that the article is "the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline", which thus far has not been demonstrated. You could just as easily apply GNG or SUSTAINED to demonstrate its lack of notability. Plus NTEMP literally discusses provisions for re-evaluating notability. Jay eyem (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Except those were PRODs so there was no consnesus, and the Vancouver Tigers article isn't even about a USOC-eligible team. The Kokomo article shouldn't have been deleted IMO since they're in the PDL, but I'll hold off on requesting undeletion until this AfD runs its course. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per GS. A plausible search term but no indication of GNG. Does not satisfy WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2018 (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.