Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Pro Soccer


 * 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. Consensus is that this team meets notability standards. North America1000 10:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Madison Pro Soccer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

premature. Not yet active, just proposed. Insufficient references at this point  DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as creator, article has been expanded and meets WP:GNG. The team is more than proposed, as the sources show, and will begin in less than six months. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets GNG. GiantSnowman 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is under the wrong category for the Afd as its meant to be under Games and Sports instead of organisation Not Homura (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG from the references provided. SportingFlyer  talk  05:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, it's received multiple stories in reliable independent coverage in madison.com, Soccer America, Wisconsin Public Radio, and isthmus.com. SportingFlyer  talk  08:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see this article passes GNG guidelines at all. Majority of sources are Primary sources which are conflict of interest. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources being used are independent of the subject, only 4 of the 21 sources are from the team themselves. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are some primary sources in the article but there are enough secondary sources to get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  00:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Madison.com, madison365.com and madisonprosoccer.com are primary sources which are 14 of 22 citations. That's over half the citations. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Madison.com (The Wisconsin Press-Journal) is clearly secondary. Madison365.com is timing out, but there are enough other sources (NPR, Soccer America) that get this over the line easily. SportingFlyer  talk  23:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * there is no rule that says a certain percentage of the sourcing cannot be WP:PRIMARY (in fact, primary is very useful for WP:V in some cases), just that WP:GNG must be met with independent coverage from multiple reliable sources of significant coverage. Multiple can be two or three if a variety of independently sourced coverage is demonstrated, and all the rest could reliable primary with no affect on notability of the subject. However, if you wanted to argue WP:NOTNEWS for WP:TOOSOON as the initial articles were simply the same announcements of a minor league team, that would be different. Although, with the announcement of coaches and such, there is some presumption of notability here. At the very least it would be a redirect to the league page until more sources turn up. Yosemiter (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - more than enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, as per users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough secondary sources to pass GNG. This AfD is a waste of everybody's time. It's clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2018 (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.