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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — kashmiri TALK 12:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SC Waterloo Region[edit]

SC Waterloo Region (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 - has not played in any major sports competition nor won any honours. Google returns an overall of 120 hits for the phrase, few of them are valid links and none indicates any significance. — kashmiri TALK 00:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. You can of course apply WP:ORG instead of WP:NSPORT, as required by the guidelines, but the notability criteria then become even stricter - significant coverage is then compulsory, while this club has had none. As to Google results, try to scroll to the last result page and only then check the number displayed. Google search engine has this well-documented "feature" where its first result page dhows as possibly having hundreds of times more results than it actually does. For "SC Waterloo", there are 214 hits, most of them of no relevance. See this link: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22sc+waterloo%22&num=100&start=200. For the future, always try to scroll to the last result page in order to learn the actual number of results. — kashmiri TALK 10:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but 200 is still a significant number. However, you're also ignoring the news items, which make it clear that the club is notable enough to be covered by the media regular basis. Number 57 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, the vast majority of those 200 are invalid hits, like "M.Sc. (Waterloo University)", or Wikipedia transclusions/copies. The remaining ones are WP:TRIVIAL mentions, uniquely in the context of game schedules and scores. There is only one less trivial hit: report of an incident involving the team which appeared in local press [1] – but, as you can verify, this was WP:ONEEVENT with no media followup, so nothing to give notability in Wikipedia sense. All in all, SC Waterloo is one of a myriad sports teams of local fame, with nothing that would secure it a place in an encyclopaedia. — kashmiri TALK 22:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have to disagree entirely with your claims about "trivial" mentions. All of the first 10 pages of hits on Google news are stories primarily about the club. A "trivial" mention would be a story about the league that briefly mentions the club, but the club is the primary topic of 9 out of the 10 articles listed on the first page. Number 57 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must be using a different Google then. The first 10 results in my search (linked to above) are: page on soccerway.com (no writing, just raw data on the team pulled from external sources, as for 1000 other football teams on the website), the Wikipedia page, the team's homepage, and 7 links to pages containing raw football scores. There is NO SINGLE creative work about the team; only automatically created scores and schedules (i.e., what we call on Wikipedia "trivial mentions"). Further results are even weaker. — kashmiri TALK 23:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said Google News, not Google. If you missed the link above it, here it is again. Number 57 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the first TWO results on match-fixing allegations, ALL the remaining ones are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of no more than 7 sentences, mostly reports of match results at CTV News. Still no notability. — kashmiri TALK 16:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you clearly haven't actually looked at the evidence. This article (#8) is far longer than you claim. But you seem determined to have the last word, so I will make my exit from the discussion at this point, and leave the closing admin to judge for themselves based on the evidence provided and the comments from other editors familiar with the subject area. Number 57 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:40, 16 January 2016 (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.
More