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 no consensus. Feel free to relist to gain a bigger response. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rationale given isn't a valid one. Try citing an actual guideline like WP:CORP. Katr67 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the other two nomination on sports teams created by the same user on why I said "another". Btw : I could have added "non-notable" to the above, but honestly that seems to be pretty much self-explanatory. But if you like : WP:CLUB and WP:N. Passportguy (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article.) Team is in an established nationwide league. Ample independent sources exist. Google news results --Esprqii (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to leagues article for now.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 30 June 2009 (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.