Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Goose SC

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. The majority of editors believe the sources are sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Goose SC

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very new team in the amateur USL League Two. All my searches brought up mainly schedule announcements from other USL League Two teams. The only substantive coverage I could find was the this local article from 2022. Anwegmann (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Shreveport-Bossier Journal did cover them: [1] [2] [3] However it doesn't look like that is the top newspaper in the city and other newspapers haven't seemed to cover them. Marginal, but not a clear delete. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would fall under local coverage, which doesn't help toward WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no problem with being local coverage in this situation as long as the source is reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You have other sources covering Blue Goose SC, including the USL 2 official website, the NPSL (though not much), and another news website (UndertheRadar NWLA)... not sure if the latter qualifies as 'local' coverage since it covers the entire Northern Louisiana, not just Shreveport - but there seems to be decent news coverage of a semi-professional (not amateur) team that continues to play in a significant [notable] league: USL II. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is league websites are generally not true secondary coverage of a club. The last news website looks like a blog and may not be reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same general issue I have. If it was consensus that league websites were seen as independent of the team and secondary, I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion. It's certainly not a clear consensus. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @Atcovi. Svartner (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.