Deletion of 2015 Grand Rapids FC season (2nd nomination)

Comment: WP:GNG failure lacking |significant coverage, and the sources that are present don't have anything to do with the season being discussed. Also fails presumption of notability for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NSEASONS)

Comment: I thought the other seasons passed  and even though this article isn't sourced as well I think it also passes . I know we've recently deleted other season articles for this team, though, and don't expect it to be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: It seems to me that the context of that statement in  is drawn from, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article," in . This article has 12 ''citation needed'' tags and three ''not in citation given'' tags. The only verifiable facts in the article are the team's average home attendance and the scores and names of goalscorers for some (less than half) of the team's matches. Admittedly, that ''may'' add up to '''some''' verifiable facts, but I'm not sure this article is what they are addressing there. Redirect makes absolute sense, if this content is moved to the team article, but if it isn't, what would be the point? So, the question is whether this content should be moved. It would be great to have the boxscores in the team article, but seven of the team's eight league match results are unsourced. Should we move all of them to preserve the single verifiable fact? The player roster and statistics are unsourced as well. None of the prose is sourced. Should it nevertheless be placed in its own section in the team article? In the end, we have one verifiable regular-season boxscore, a few verifiable and unverifiable boxscores from friendlies, several paragraphs of unverifiable text, an unverifiable roster and unverifiable statistics. The word ''some'' is difficult to quantify, but this seems more to me like a bit less than some. The amount of unverifiable content is overwhelming in comparison to the verifiable facts with which it would move. If one concludes that the content should not be moved, what would a redirect accomplish
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASONS||WP:GNG)