Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesapeake Tide

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 of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Tide

Non notable. An article about a something that is schedule to exist in 2007. Abu Badali 00:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No claim to notability. Captainj 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.--Andeh 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I don't agree with deleting articles for teams that have yet to start play, because I would contend that existing in a recognized league is enough for notability. However, not only is the league that this team would be playing in not big enough to guarantee notability, their website is under construction, and the page for the league says that a press conference is "TBA". Delete. --fuzzy510 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a crystal ball article. It covers documented and verifiable facts as they exist today for an expansion team of a minor professional football league. I can, however, understand the argument that perhaps this league isn't terribly notable, but I think there is enough coverage of it to say otherwise [1]. ScottW 01:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being a verifiable fact is enough. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The point here is notability. And not even the of the league, but the notability of the team. --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. Not blatant crystal ballage. I think a team scheduled to begin play in a minor progessional league is notable enough -- Samir धर्म 01:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, this is the whole point of the discussion. I strogly disagree with you. It's not notable at all. --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the article is worded poorly means nothing. The league is there, the team is verifiabile as the league, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being worded poorly is not a problem. This is a wiki. We can just go there and fix it. The verifiability of the information is not in question. The notability is. --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a real team who are actually starting play in 2007. Just because it's in the future doesn't mean it should be automatically deleted, heck there is already an article for the next presidential election in the US (and the following one I think). Ben W Bell talk 07:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, it should. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But it is verifiable information, not a crystal ball is for non-readily verifiable information. Ben W Bell talk 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wb s above. Xyra e l ^T 09:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ILovePlankton 14:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom . Not notable enough Bwithh 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've looked it over, I've changed my opinion to keep. The precedent has been set for plenty of smaller-league teams that haven't begun play yet to have articles once they were announced, and we should stay consistent. --fuzzy510 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is verified and it is notable enough. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - semipro teams are notable BigDT 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though not a particularly good article. Sarge Baldy 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, from all Google news, only two hits (this being the most notable) about this team. However, the proximity of the new season (6 months, I would guess), makes it fit inside the exceptions listed in the first crystal ball clause. -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google didn't capture it but the local Gazette Newspapers in Maryland have an article up about the team for reference. EvWill 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the entries for all the teams in this league could use rewrites I grant. That said, if the entry for the nearby planned Southern Maryland Blue Crabs minor league baseball team can stay up without objection, this entry should stay up too. EvWill 01:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies "crystal ball" requirement: "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Notability is of concern, but is substantial minor league team and deserves benefit of the doubt for now. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WCityMike. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't believe any of this "notability" bullsh*t. I believe Wikipedia is not paper. By your logic, the GLIFL page should be deleted. The expansion team is as notable as the league. Plus, when they have a press conference on June 21, it's gonna be really hard to do a page if the article is deleted. Just my thoughts M. Burmy 11:16 CDT 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Since the Gazette newspapers have already reported the team as having been awarded by the league and the league's website reports the team as being awarded to the owner, it's a real team. If the league or the team fold tomorrow, then you can consider deleting it, but right now, it's valid. Sarzonia 20:33, 6 June 2006 (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.