Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Virginia United FC

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. Not sure we're going to get clear consensus here, there's certainly some sourcing there but whether it is significant enough is still in question. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Virginia United FC

Northern Virginia United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The only secondary sources I could find mentioning the clubs were one or two paragraph long game recaps from the Baltimore Sun and the Newport News newspaper. I'm not sure this club passes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that their games are regularly reported on suggests that the team is notable. While it is true that
  WP:ROUTINE specifically says individual match reports are routine coverage, that only applies to the notability of events, in this case the individual matches themselves, and not to the larger issue of notability of the teams involved. Smartyllama (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not sure they are. The two blurbs were very brief and weren't in the local newspaper, and match reports are also excluded regarding player notability. I'm happy for this to be kept if other coverage is found, but something isn't notable because of two or three three-sentence match reports. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this, this, this, this, and this and that was all in about ten minutes of looking. It seems to meet GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We must have used different search terms or something! The Soccerwire and Midfield Press articles clearly aren't significant coverage, and I can't access the Loudoun Times because of the geoblocker. The Scottish articles don't look bad, but I'm not convinced and will leave this open instead of withdrawing (kind of strange if a club passes GNG alone from a country it doesn't play in.) Appreciate you finding sources, though. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep - the based on the sources found, this nomination feels like a
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination rather than a legitimate nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - appears notable based on sources and arguments presented above. GiantSnowman 17:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't my field, but it seems to me somewhat strange that a program at this level would meet WP requirements. I know, people sometimes say similarly of articles in fields I'm interested in. And I recognize it's more generally due to the distortion caused by our reliance upon sourcing for notability, when the available sourcing depends so much upon subject field. , DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the teams in that league have articles. While I'm aware of
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, absent a stronger argument against notability than "it's somewhat strange that it would be notable at this level", that should disprove that argument. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Like Northern Virginia United, a lot of the teams in the league are really poorly sourced. FC Davis. PDX FC. Even teams like Oxnard Guerreros FC with a number of sources only have two sources that aren't independent of the team and they're only to the local paper. I know our standards for football clubs are lower than organisations, but there's no guarantee teams in this league get any coverage: for instance, this article's on track to be kept because there was one article written in a local newspaper, a couple match reports from other cities, and two articles from Scotland talking about how people from Dundee set up the club, which still makes no sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as you'll have noticed, I did not !vote, just comment. I'm not !voting for a keep against the usual way of doing it. . I am reminding people that the custom is susceptible to challenge, and the standards in some fields have changed from time to time, generally by adjusting the sources that are considered acceptable as was done for WP:NCORP. I say this every year or so somewhere, so people recognize there just might be alternatives. I don't think it's completely a matter of proportional emphasis by field--I almost always !vote against individual academic departments. (My real ideal goal is to completely change the way we handle notability into defined standards appropriate to the subject, as long as there are enough sources to write a verifiable article, but I know that's not likely to happen. But it might. I've been here 15 years and plan another 15.

However, the argument that "other clubs at this level have them" is only an argument for putting them all on a list or combination article. End of my statement of position--I don't want to interfere with others DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete based on sourcing provided, only the Loudoun Times-Mirror approaches
  WP:FOOTYN. Additionally, the article suffers from an out of date roster, which is common for NPSL/USL2 sides and has resulted in a lot of permastubs. I'm leaning delete on this. Jay eyem (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The sources supplied here are either connected, passing mentions, or
  WP:ROUTINE coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – as mentioned above, there are already some sources from the Scottish press which can be added, due to the Brian Welsh connection. In addition, they have literally only just announced a strategic link with Dundee United, which can be expected to lead to further coverage. Jellyman (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above.
  talk) 00:52, 2 April 2021 (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.