Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roc City Thunder

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 delete. Some sources were presented here, but failed to convince the other discussants that neither

WP:ORGCRIT were met. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Roc City Thunder

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

Appears to fail

routine announcement. Yosemiter (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that's a misapplication of WP:ROUTINE. Nonetheless, I'll concede that the coverage largely lacks depth, but I see at least two sources in the article that seem to satisfy under the GNG. Powers ^T 19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GEOSCOPE. Which two sources specifically would you say meet GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be the Reporter and the Finger Lakes Times articles. They're thin, but sufficient IMO. Powers ^T 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [1][2][3][4][5]. From nl.newsbank.com, "AMERICAN INDOOR FOOTBALL New arena team coming to Roc City". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  diverse coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

delete looks pretty weak either way. We're not talking about an individual here but a group. It could be worthy of an entry in the league article, but it just feels like too much of a stretch for me for a stand-alone article. I don't believe it passes
ignore all rules for my reasoning simply because I think including this article does not improve Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree it's marginal, but I err on the other side; I think it's useful to record what information we have on a team that represented a good-sized community in a professional sports league. Powers ^T 01:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ITSIMPORTANT with that combination makes anything close to important or useful. Yosemiter (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 09:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~
~~WP:UNOPPOSED comes to mind -- An unopposed AFD is really like a PROD.~~--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep Sorry for not being clear, but I do oppose deletion. I think the available sources are barely sufficient. Powers ^T 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT
or the GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and his subsequent comments. The team never played in a proper league as far a see no claim of notability. I don't think any of that coverage is GNG level in that it is neither in depth nor persistent, and is all about saying this new team is coming...even though they never really did.
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS applies. ClubOranje^T 04:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Just for the record, they did play games. They just weren't in American Indoor Football when they did so. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those games even appear to have been covered in their own local media. Only records I ever found were posted on the Thunder's social media pages. Yosemiter (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The team seems to fail
WP:GNG, when even local media doesn't address it. Ifnord (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roc_City_Thunder&oldid=1138311346"