Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest City London


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Forest City London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Fails notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As notable as other teams in its division/league. Radagast (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not notable. There are no sources and I could find none. You must prove that they are notable, not simply pronounce it. Walter Görlitz (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable. GiantSnowman 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fourth tier in England is notable. It's not in the US. Second tier barely achieves recognition in the US. Even if it were, this team is not. Please proved RSes that this team is notable. Also, this team plays in Canada, not the US. You clearly do not understand the subject we're discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator says he can not find any sources on the subject; here's a couple from a very quick Google search:, . Looking at Premier Development League, every other club in that league has an article; I don't see why Forest City London should be any different.  The nominator claims the article "Fails notability criteria"; what notability criteria are these? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One paragraph is considered to be fulfilling RS? The others are blogs!
 * Keep- this nomination makes no sense in light of the clear consensus in previous attempts of deletions of Canadian USPDL teams. This is the first level of soccer in North America that isn't fully professional. Players at this level are arguably shouldn't have articles.  But teams? Nfitz (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing admin: Please note that the arguments in favour of keeping do not use any guidelines or polices. The team does not have any reliable sources. being a member of a notable league does not make the team any more notable than being a non-notable band on a notable record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing admin. Please note that User:Walter Görlitz has a history of nominating teams in this league for deletion, despite precedent-setting near-unanimous rejection. Please also note reliable sources such as, , . Nfitz (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a history of nominating a number of non-notable subjects for deletion. The fact that this team is not notable while the league currently meets notability guidelines should not be conflated. If you can't keep classes and their objects separate, it's time to stop editing . That seems to be the case for you and several other editors here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As  says, while we may not deem players notable because they played for this club, the club itself, like other clubs at this level, is sufficiently notable for an article.  In addition to the reasons already stated, sources are apparent in basic searches, for example see the GNews and Google searches for <"FC London" Ontario> (links above).--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 1 September 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.