Talk:Cavalry FC

Football: American & Canadian Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Advertisement Style[edit]

I'd argue that this isn't the case but... --MattBinYYC (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added the wrong one. In my tool, it's right under the notability tag. I was looking at it and was wondering if I had added it. Removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and notability[edit]

With now 8/9 of the references being secondary sources, I think it's safe to say that that is no longer an issue. I think the coverage in all those sources also satisfies the General notability guideline. As such, I have removed those issues, but this is here for discussion if anyone still objects. Blue jays (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable. Mere passing mentions, and they're almost all based on the team's or league's press release, but I won't restore primary, but still fails notability as far as I can see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this objection inconsistent if you don't hold the same opinion about York 9 FC, which seems to be in about the same shape. Either both are notable (my feeling), or neither. Radagast (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement of the club was covered by the CBC, Global News, Sportsnet, TSN, and the Calgary Herald. The articles I cited all "address the topic directly and in detail" (per Wikipedia:GNG), not in passing. The team was also covered by the CBC and Global News before the announcement. I'd think that all the sources listed are reliable and independent of the subject (per GNG). Blue jays (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do hold the same objection. The entire league is a year away from fielding any players. Feel free to tag that article, Halifax (if it gets an article), Winnipeg, Victoria, "Port City" and any other team articles that are created. A flurry of press as part of the team's creation does not help any of these teams meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for "detail", I've seen better coverage about upcoming recordings that aren't notable yet either. The coverage is WP:ROUTINE at best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to feel that all these teams coming into creation enforce each other's notability. If these were expansion teams of an established league, I doubt there would be an argument; I must wonder if there is precedent on this site for a league and its teams being created fully new. Radagast (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your feeling supported by any policy or guideline? For the record, I have opposed the creation of expansion clubs in PDL and lower because they are not professional and had no press. At least the CPL has a bit of press for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary or Foothills County?[edit]

@Walter Görlitz: — The address is listed as 18011 Spruce Meadows Way SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2X 4B7 on the Spruce Meadows website. The club website Stadium profile says it is "situated on the southern edge of suburban Calgary" which is somewhat ambiguous, however I can't find anything saying the stadium is in Foothills County. --TrailBlzr (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed earlier, possibly at the league level. The article for the venue itself, Spruce Meadows, lists it as "Foothills County, Alberta". @Radagast: added that it was near Calgary, with the next edit claiming that as of "January 1, 2011 Spruce Meadows ceased to be within the City of Calgary in a deal with the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31". While @UmpireRay: added the infobox as stated above. I'll let them explain their reasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While they do list their address in Calgary, Spruce Meadows is not actually located in the city of Calgary, but Foothills County (formerly the M.D. of Foothills No. 31), Alberta. This can be seen on the map of Calgary on the city's website which shows the area of Spruce Meadows just outside Clagary's borders, Foothills County's map which shows it in their borders, and the Foothills Country places of interest page which does list Spruce Meadows. The specifics of the deal to "annex" Spruce Meadows on January 1, 2011 can be found on this page. Hope that clears it up. UmpireRay (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said. Their postal address may remain as Calgary, but municipally they are now in Foothills. Radagast (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]