Talk:San Francisco Soccer Football League

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Maxschweitzer (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all original work. Read it please before you automatically place this tag on it.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Maxschweitzer (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all original work. Read it.

It's not original work which can be easily seen by using the link in the template. Leaving multiple messages here and on my talk page is not the best way to keep this article from being deleted. The issues discussed with you on your talk page have not been addressed either. Creating the article after having been told that the article was not fit for mainspace was inappropriate. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

I'm concerned about the Teams section. The vast majority of these teams don't appear to be notable and the blue links redirect to pro team that the listed team is a reserve for. The list itself seems important to me but makes up almost half the content of the entire article. The only solutions I can come up with are to completely remove the list (don't particularly agree with this), create a template that will be collapsible and found at the end of the article, or create another article for the list of teams in the SFSFL each year.

Personally, I think a template would be best unless the list of teams changes drastically from year to year in which case, another article would probably be best so that each year can easily be listed. Both methods can easily be used, though. I don't support removing the list completely from WP but I definitely don't believe that it belong in its current location at its current size. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my first draft of the template. It's obviously a copy/paste of the MLS team template but they have templates for each year. I'm not sure the SFSFL requires a template for each year but I can easily change that. The team names need change, obviously.

My question is, do the teams in each division change enough that a template will be needed for every year? Keep in mind that unless an article is made for every season, and I'm not sure that each season is notable, making a template for each year will mean that templates from past years will not be used in any article. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the teams change fairly drastically and sometimes even new divisions are added (in 2012 Spring-Fall). We'll probably need a template for every year unless we dumb it down so that it can work for every year. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the Teams section and replaced it with the new 2013 teams list template at the bottom of the page. I recognize that I didn't anyone much time to respond. But I think this is a better use of space and WP's capabilities. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Boxer

Matt Boxer was recently added to the list of notable members. Outside of "member" being an odd term to use for this section due to there being no apparent membership, notability isn't established. Obviously, the individual had some clear importance as Boxer Stadium was named after him when he passed away. Between this article including him as a notable member and Boxer Stadium mentioning him, there is a gap in information about the man himself. I created a link on Matt Boxer in this article that points at Boxer Stadium as I believe that there are two options here. One is that Matt Boxer is notable per WP:N and deserves his own article and when that article is created, the link will point to that article. The other is that he's not notable on his own and the link stays pointing at Boxer Stadium so that the information hole is closed (information about him would need to be added to the Boxer Stadium article). OlYeller21^Talktome 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]