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 as given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RCD Espanyol cantera[edit]

RCD Espanyol cantera (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)

Non-notable subsidiary of a football club in Spain, lack of coverage. No inherited notability. Redirect to parent article RCD Espanyol. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP (sports notability criteria doesn't apply to sports teams) - TheMagnificentist 14:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Several such articles exist for the top Spanish club youth sections. Espanyol have produced many elite players so their setup is significant in that respect, and they have also won the national competitions several times in recent years. That is all in the article, sourced in some cases and linked in others. Current Squad list and other dynamic info requires to be updated for new season, but previous one only ended a few weeks ago and I was planning to update this in the next few weeks when I had sufficient time to get it all correct, (which takes longer when working primarily from another language) rather than trying to rush it. There is plenty of independent media coverage available, so to add CN tags or a RefImprove hatnote would perhaps be fair in the first instance. But to simply blank-redirect to the main club article with out warning, giving me and others no chance to rectify any of the issues identified (either via the article or personal talk pages) is an unnecessary overreaction in my opinion. Previous discussions regarding these articles have taken place at WP:FOOTY fairly recently here, here and here, which acknowledge that they can be notable when the academy is very productive and/or successful in its own sphere, rather than just being a youth team attached to a famous name club. I believe the Espanyol article fulfils these requirements, although as stated above it maybe needs more independent citations to reinforce this notability.Crowsus (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily passes WP:GNG with plenty of coverage and citations. Also per Crowsus's !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2017 (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.