Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas City Kings PASL-Premier


 * 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   clear consensus to redirect, including from the original nominator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Kansas City Kings PASL-Premier

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

Procedural nomination, PROD removed with no explanation given. Original rationale was "There is no indication as to why this team meets the notability criteria for soccer teams. Looking down the list of PASL teams, only three or four even have articles." Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!)  10:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete as original prodder. – PeeJay 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per original PROD rationale. GiantSnowman 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Premier Arena Soccer League and rename redirect to meet MOS to Kansas City Kings (indoor soccer).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. Seems like a good idea. – PeeJay 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded (or maybe that should be thirded as PeeJay's is probably the seconded). Kansas City Kings PASL-Premier don't meet notability in their own right in my opinion.-- Club Oranje T 07:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. This makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect & rename & such per above; not sure why this needed to be relisted, common-sensical consensus seems to have been reached (including from the original prod'er, and the nom. only brought it here on procedure). "Redirects are cheap" etc etc. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect etc etc etc ;)--Cerejota (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect etc........ as above. As a member of the taskforce that covers this article, I would have to say that there are few sources, little claim to notability, and a horrid article name. DeMoN 2009  22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect certainly seems to be the way to go, as suggested by Nate above. Any admin types reading this? Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  09:09, 27 February 2009 (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.