Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central California Valley Hydra


 * 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. The Helpful  One  12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Central California Valley Hydra

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod. Defunct and nonnotable soccer team with no references and no notable achievements or accomplishments. BrooklynBarber (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A team that played in a fully professional league, so even its individual players would be notable per WP:ATHLETE. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No they wouldn't. Notability is not inherited. The players on the team are not notable. The team is not notable because of its league. You need to re-read WP:ATHLETE. This team went defunct 14 years ago and as a direct result of that there are 0 reliable sources for it. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for this one. It's a preview of the 1996 season.  Scan down through the teams.  Perhaps some might sound familiar, such as the Minnesota Thunder, Cape Cod Crusaders, Carolina Dynamo, Long Island Rough Riders, or Richmond Kickers.  These are all current or recent members of the United Soccer Leagues, the league previously known as the USISL.  By the way, how is a national team player such as Jeff Baicher "not notable"? Mohrflies (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Fully professional soccer team. The article needs work, not deletion. Mohrflies (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to work on the article because there are not now, nor will there ever be, any reliable sources for the information. Therefore it will forever fail WP:OR. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you know for sure that there are no reliable sources available. Any real sports team in a professional league will have been documented in at least local press, I'd have thought? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - they were a professional football team, and looked to have played in a fully-pro league, so meets notability requirements IMO. GiantSnowman 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Where is the evidence the league is fully pro? And how much would they pay a player? I can't see it being that much, I would prefer more evidence. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if the league was not fully pro that would only be a bar to individual players being considered automatically notable. Clubs are considered notable well below the professional level. For example the accepted level for notability for English clubs is level ten - six levels below the lowest fully professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment CCVH played in the USISL Pro League, which has been renamed the USL Second Division - the third tier of American soccer, and its lowest professional league. GiantSnowman 19:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. According to our own article "United Soccer Leagues Second Division (often referred to as simply, USL-2) is a professional men's soccer league in North America". So if it can be verified, there's no question about its notability. The problem here is that the nominator relies on the internet for that verification while it's not uncommon for stuff that old only to be covered by dead-tree (paper) sources. If it's not verified in another few months, try nominating it again (or have someone check paper archives -- I don't have access until monday) - Mgm|(talk) 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete At the moment I see an article that fails because it has no citation or external links. It will need much improvement if you want my keep vote. Govvy (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a stub that needs improvement (additional content, references) but its affiliation with a professional soccer league that is covered in wikipedia and two players that are covered in wikipedia probably affords this the benefit of the doubt. Also I found some more info when I searched under CCV Hydra (Still not a lot of coverage).  |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 05:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect. Keep because there are numerous paper sources where the team is mentioned in most of the leagues local markets. Redirect because these sources show the team as either CCV Hydra, Central Valley Hydra, or California Central Valley Hydra, but I have not seen Central California Valley Hydra. Libro0 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly the name confusion will play a role in setting up the sourcing, but a professional club in a professional league is an exceedingly strong indicator of sources existing, if we can figure out the best name to search under. matt91486 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2008 (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.