Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC-OFC Reorganization Proposal

AFC-OFC Reorganization Proposal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is there such a proposal or is this just soapboxing on behalf of the article creator? (who in the past has argued to seemingly fictional entities) I notice on-line that the issue has been discussed, [1], [2], [3], but I see no concrete moves as suggested by the article. Soman (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced information on serious suggestions for reform should go in Oceania Football Confederation, but this is a non-notable, unreferenced (and badly-written) proposal that might just be the idea of the page creator. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number 5 7 11:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a separate article on this. Number 5 7 11:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unneccessary fork. Giant Snowman 12:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to just be something dreamed up by the article creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable information that should go into the article about the Oceania Football Confederation, but at this point there is no need for a WP:SPINOFF article. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If either organisation makes a concrete move to go ahead with the proposal (hence widely covered by the media) then a separate article would be acceptable, but at this stage, NN. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like fantasy bollocks on behalf of the article creator. – Pee Jay 19:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like complete OR. Anything verifiable should go int the respective conference articles, no need for this speculativ fork. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not need its own separate article. JMHamo (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]