Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Roots SC (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to National Independent Soccer Association. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Oakland Roots SC
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. Only non-affiliated reference is a blog. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Has not played (not is it guaranteed to play) for the national cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I'm not that concerned about the fact it's a blog as it's a regular soccer writer writing the articles for something published by Hearst, see also . Other coverage I found includes, , and - seems to pass WP:GNG, as there are a number of other possibly non-reliable sources which mention the subject. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:ROUTINE, local coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's a bit more to those articles than just routine coverage, they're all long and in depth. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redriect per previous AFD and salt to prevent re-creation. GiantSnowman 09:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not salt - It's not clear which league they're going to be playing in so redirecting to a league per the previous AFD is not viable, they may well become notable in future. FOARP (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Nothing has changed since the last AfD. If they were an announced member of the NISA, I could maaaaaaaybe see giving them a pass. Otherwise, WP:GNG does not appear to be sufficiently demonstrated and the purpose of the article's recreation at this time is unclear. Jay eyem (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'm not sure why this would be nominated for deletion, rather than simply restoring the existing redirect, with reference to the previous AFD. It certainly shouldn't be salted, given the unanimous consensus for a redirect in the previous AFD, and the possibility of this team becoming real next year. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Certainly cannot pass the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Now, as with any future recreation, the editor or (possibly fan) needs to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Five sources on the article and four are primary with one being a blog. Considering that the redirect will likely be converted back to an article at the first available opportunity it is understandable that a salt was proposed. Comments that there are "other possibly non-reliable sources", with examples that are clearly either not reliable, attempting to show that Wikipedia is a crystal ball, or does not provide any notability, is precisely the reason this will likely be revisited, possibly as soon as the first game is played, likely using thin promotional breaking news sources. See: RSBREAKING and Reliable sources. By-the-way ---, salting does not prevent an article from being created again. When repeated recreations are evident (certainly with sourcing issues), with the possibility of yet another repeat, it can be a form of protection requiring admin action before recreation, I think somewhat like a faster-tracked AFC. There should not be some presented stigma that salting is a bad thing, even horrible, and is certainly not final. Anyone can request protection removal and providing reliable sources would certainly gain approval and I dare say, a far less likely chance of a revisit to AFD.  Otr500 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your result ­– just wanted to note sports teams typically aren't subject to WP:NORG. It shouldn't be salted, the "blog" is coverage from a major media organisation and there are other feature articles we could use to write a decent article now, the only question I have at the moment is whether this team will actually play. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A reply to the note: "Typically" may be correct, and we may use other ways, but not actually arguable that it is not appropriate unless a team is not an organization or company. I did not weigh in to agree for a salt. As a refresh to memory I will quote "it is understandable that a salt was proposed.". The rest was because I have seen editors implying that a salt is the end of an article and that is simply not true. I have stated this several times, and will again, that a source can be great for article content while not advancing notability. The article currently has only the blog and that is not a good choice for attempting to prove notability. If the team plays as planned I assume it will gather enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Otr500 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did link two other feature length non-blog articles in my vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - The original AFD resulted in a redirect to National Premier Soccer League, however this team has now announced that it is not going to play in that league but instead in the NISA. Can the people voting redirect above please explain what they want to redirect to? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd assume at this point it would be to National Independent Soccer Association where there is detail about this club. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Their uncertain future is the sole reason I would want a delete. With no specific target, we can deal with a target once they actually announce front-office staff, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Until we get more reliable non-primary sources saying they will join NISA, I see nothing wrong with redirecting it back to the NPSL page. Or maybe the NPSL Founders Cup page now that it exists and is of particular relevance to the team. Jay eyem (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it is probably too soon and I did !vote redirect before finding out the team was not going to play in the league as initially shown. Is there a history of apparently millions being pumped into creating a team (maybe as some scam) that ends up not becoming a reality? At this point the team apparently exists is why I went with redirect. Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some. Virginia Cavalry FC comes to mind. The issue here is that there's not a super clear redirect, since the competition that they will/were going to play in has always been a bit unclear. Initially, the page was redirected to the NPSL page because there was no NPSL Founders Cup page. And now that they have announced that they will play in the NISA, that seems to be the more clear redirect. It looks like Soccer America has covered it, so I don't know if that changes anybody's mind (it is behind a paywall). There's also this. Jay eyem (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I Would need clarification of "so I don't know if that changes anybody's mind". It is so far clear of a decision to redirect. I support a necessary change of target, and I assume most would, but I don't see a change to "keep". To where seems to have been decided by the "team" changing leagues. Now it can be left to the closer, or possibly ping the other editors involved so they can weigh in and possibly agree. Otr500 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (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.