Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislaus County Cruisers

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 merge to California Gold. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Stanislaus County Cruisers

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Stanislaus County Cruisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Team in local league with no claims of notability Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The article is notable as the league was considered a fully professional just needs to be improved.Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Professional soccer teams are definitely notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Merge Added a couple sources. The league they were in wasn't local, and they played in the U.S. Open Cup. This is effectively a keep vote, but [1] suggests a merge and redirect to California Gold. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As little as I think of the various sports notability guidelines, even those don't support keeping this. WP:NTEAM says, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline, and this fails that badly. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• They briefly received national coverage for playing San Jose Earthquakes in the U.S. Open Cup in 2000, and the Soccer America article shows they at the very least received local coverage in the Modesto paper during their time on this earth. The only coverage I can find on the contemporary internet is routine press coverage of their away matches, but considering this was nearly 20 years ago now that doesn't surprise me much. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• delete Coverage does not meet the GNG. Played in a non-professional league and best coverage was when they played an MLS team, but notability isn't achieved by one 5-0 loss in a soccer game.Sandals1 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to California Gold per SportingFlyer, WP:PAGEDECIDE and [2]. In 2002, the Stanislaus County Cruisers changed their name to California Gold. That would explain the lack of internet sources to meet GNG under the old name. It's just one team, though, so it doesn't need two articles. Redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the content can be merged. Leviv ich 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As the nominator, I agree with merging this article to California Gold. Thanks for the research, Levivich! Rogermx (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't thank me, I copied off of SportingFlyer's !vote :-) Leviv ich 22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally I'd side with a redirect but I don't see much reason to redirect to an unreferenced article.Sandals1 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 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.