Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.C. United Academy

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United Academy

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

Youth sports league which fails

WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a youth league and academy. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither a youth league nor a local affiliate of a national organization. Nomination is completely wrong and neither reason offered is accurate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What about the GNG claims? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of reliable secondary sources covering this organization, within a general Google search, a Google News search, and even a Books search. I feel that means it easily passes

WP:GNG ArchieOof (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (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.