Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo City 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo City FC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

How is a team that played only one season and then sold themselves to another club notable? Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I thought it was implied, to clarify my nom, the article does not meet WP:GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - In the same way that some 22nd division amateur league in England is notable. Mohrflies (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - As per all other teams that have played in the NPSL. JonBroxton (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If every team that has ever played for the NPSL, even if for only one season, is deemed inherently notable, I would consider withdrawing my nomination pending non-sports editor comments (if any), even though I think it counts more as practice than as satisfying notability requirements. I would note, though, that Buffalo City FC doesn't appear to be listed on former teams on the NPSL article page, but maybe that's just an oversight.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The key thing though is ensuring the data on Buffalo City is accurate. The vast majority - if not all - of the sources quoted stem from Mike Share's own websites, which he himself edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Level 4 of American football is not notable per WP:FOOTYN. The above comments reek of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the fourth tier of the United States soccer pyramid is notable as the highest amateur level. GiantSnowman 20:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nominating comment is useless to me. "How is a team that played only one season and then sold themselves to another club notable?"   There is no inherent "oh yeah, its not" response to this, it depends on coverage.  TV shows that have only aired one episode have been found notable.  It appears that every current(and a score or so former) team in the National Premier Soccer League has a page, i don't see an advantage of deleting this one and having a comprehensive encyclopedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Smelling a hint of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there... Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can smell my farts if that suits your fancy, my main point is that the nomination statement is worthless.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Nom has neither proffered a valid ground for deletion, nor advocated deletion, nor advocated any action at all. Come to that, there is nothing in any guideline precluding notability for a team that has existed a single season; there are hundreds of examples of the same which meet applicable standards.  Ravenswing  10:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get these kinds of !votes. If the nominator's reason for nominating the article is unpersuasive, that is not a rationale to speedy close the AFD, especially where other participants in the discussion have offered better arguments. causa sui (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's lovely to be a punching bag.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that the nominator has given an unpersuasive reason to delete. It's that the nominator hasn't given ANY reason to delete, nor even advocated deletion or any other action.  That being said, it's not that the two Delete proponents have offered "better" arguments so much as they've expressed arguments at all.  Nonetheless, a speedy close is a perfectly proper way to handle a broken nomination.  In the nom's shoes, I would have worried less about hurt feelings than about fixing the AfD to reflect a proper nomination, complete with valid deletion criteria, but that's just me.  Ravenswing  19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is it's a waste of time to argue with you. I gave a reason to delete. I just phrased it as a question instead of as a statement. I nominated several articles in this area at about the same time. Two have already been deleted. This one is apparently a closer call. What you should have done is simply stated your reasons for why the article should be kept rather than rant about the alleged shortcomings of mine for nominating it. I'm not "hurt", just annoyed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Why one advocates a "Speedy Keep" result is through a belief that the nomination is deeply flawed and/or improperly tendered, on procedural grounds rather than on the merits (or lack thereof) of deletion. I'm somewhat flabbergasted that someone active in AfD, with over 14,000 edits, would need that spelled out, because people advocate Speedy Keeps only about several dozen times a day at AfD, and for just those reasons.  Ravenswing  20:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was annoyed, and now you're flabbergasted. I feel better. What I've seen of speedy keeps is that they are usually made when the voter thinks the nomination is patently meritless, not for "procedural" reasons. I'm hungry now and want to have lunch, but I'll look later to see if you're technically correct, despite my personal observations. It sounds completely contrary to common sense to me, but a lot of editors here don't believe in common sense. You can take that as a mild dig if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy lunch (heh). WP:SK states the reasons for a speedy keep, not one of which meets your definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This was a very minor team in a very minor league. The WP:FOOTYN essay suggests that it is not sufficiently notable.   There are virtually no independent sources describing the club.  Even its External link to http://www.buffalocityfc.com produces a web site selling Viagra.  Any information about the team can be captured in the article about its league (or, perhaps a new History of the league article). --Noleander (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As a record of the history of the NPSL, it is encyclopedic.--Feddx (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * perhaps a read of WP:ITSUSEFUL will help explain why we don't keep articles for that reason. Mt king  (edits)  20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete In a setup where any new team can buy a spot in the league just playing is not enough, this is a team that (according to the article) played for one year, it's only ref supports the existence of a successor club (Ontario United FC) so absent any WP:RS showing significant coverage, this fails WP:GNG. Mt  king  (edits)  20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously not ground-breaking stuff, (and nor is 99% of Wikipedia's content), but it has historical notability.  Deterence  Talk 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A hell of a lot of terrible arguments above on both sides. At the very least, this is an early history of the franchise which becme FC Buffalo, not to mention a valid search phrase, and so a merge here should have been a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (talk)  15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - which is the default position in such cases of minor notability, and create a redirect and merge whatever you want (less is likely more) to the parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete is the default position?--Milowent • talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 01:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats right. - redirect - just create it - merge - just do it - delete of the article is the direct result. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep First off, those who sited Wikipedia:FOOTYN should be aware that is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so its fairly meaningless. If enough people supported it, it'd be promoted to guideline status.  The fact that they only played one season then joined with Queen City FC who had played for two seasons, to form FC Buffalo which has thus far played for two seasons and is still around, isn't relevant.  That article says the final team was "not a continuation of either franchise".  It is part of a national organization, not just some local club.   D r e a m Focus  01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.