Deletion of Oakland Roots SC (2nd nomination)

Comment: Nothing has changed since the last AfD. If they were an announced member of the NISA, I could maaaaaaaybe see giving them a pass. Otherwise,  does not appear to be sufficiently demonstrated and the purpose of the article's recreation at this time is unclear
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm not that concerned about the fact it's a blog as it's a regular soccer writer writing the articles for something published by Hearst, see also https://blog.sfgate.com/soccer/2019/05/09/oakland-roots-name-ex-mls-player-paul-bravo-as-head-coach/. Other coverage I found includes https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/04/22/soccer-oakland-roots-npsl-damian-lillard.html, https://blog.sfgate.com/soccer/2019/06/27/oakland-roots-will-join-nisa-drop-out-of-npsl-founders-cup/, and https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/soccer-putting-down-roots-in-oakland/Content?oid=17703012 - seems to pass , as there are a number of other possibly non-reliable sources which mention the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Certainly cannot pass the criteria for WP:GNG or . Now, as with any future recreation, the editor or (possibly Fan (person)|fan) needs to provide |significant coverage in |reliable sources that are dentifying independent sources|independent of the subject. Five sources on the article and four are |primary with one being a blog. Considering that the redirect will likely be converted back to an article at the first available opportunity it is understandable that a salt was proposed. Comments that there are "other possibly non-reliable sources", with examples that are clearly either not reliable, attempting to show that Wikipedia is a |crystal ball, or does not provide any notability, is precisely the reason this will likely be revisited, possibly as soon as the first game is played, likely using thin |promotional |breaking Wikipedia:Breaking news sources|news sources. See: Wikipedia:RSBREAKING and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Breaking news. ---- ''By-the-way'' ---, |salting does not prevent an article from being created again. When repeated recreations are evident (certainly with sourcing issues), with the possibility of yet another repeat, it can be a form of protection requiring admin action before recreation, I think somewhat like a faster-tracked AFC. There should not be some presented stigma that salting is a bad thing, even horrible, and is certainly not final. Anyone can request protection removal and providing reliable sources would certainly gain approval and I dare say, a far less likely chance of a revisit to AFD
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:SIGNIFICANT||WP:RS||WP:I||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTPROMO||WP:BREAKING||WP:SALT||WP:primary)