Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calgary Foothills 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Calgary Foothills FC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable association football team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Same playing level as other Canadian PDL clubs Thunder Bay Chill, |Forest City London, KW United FC, WSA Winnipeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean clarke7 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is not in a fully professional league -- the majority of the players don't even get paid. Tavix | Talk 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the standard for keeping articles for teams are not whether they are fully professional or not. (in the UK for example, the 5th tier isn't fully professional, but team articles are almost universal down to the 10th tier, and sporadic after that for particularly notable teams). Teams that play in the Premier Development League have always been considered notable previously. Nfitz (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this rationale. England has a completely different system than Canada/USA and a direct comparison isn't fair. If this team is notable, it should be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it wouldn't meet WP:GNG given the references in the article. When EVERY other team of the same criteria has an article, than there's nothing wrong with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because teams in this league get significant media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I added the following references to the points made in the article:
 * MacKinnon, Jeff (December 4, 2014). "Foothills join upper level soccer league; USL development loop welcomes Calgary squad beginning in 2015". Calgary Herald. p. B14.
 * "Foothills FC joins Under-23 soccer league". Calgary Sun. December 3, 2014. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
 * Weismiller, Bryan (March 17, 2014). "Canadian Soccer Association OKs pro-calibre Calgary team". Metro Calgary. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
 * MacKinnon, Jeff (June 9, 2014). "Foothills edge Whitecaps in U23 match". Calgary Herald. p. C2.
 * MacKinnon, Jeff (April 18, 2014). "New U23 franchise to kick off exhibition season". Calgary Herald. p. D2.
 * MacKinnon, Jeff (April 26, 2015). "Foothills FC cites fitness concerns in exhibition loss to Edmonton". Calgary Herald. Retrieved May 4, 2015. —maclean (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why neither User:Sean clarke7 nor User:Maclean25 have expressed an opinion on whether or not this page should be kept, as they both seem to have opinions. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Content provided by User:Maclean25 contains multiple secondary sources providing coverage in local media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean clarke7 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - playing in the PDL is sufficient. GiantSnowman 18:07, 6 May 2015 (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.