Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruby Murray (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 22 April 2014 (→Football). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Football (soccer). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Football|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Football (soccer). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Purge page cache watch


Primary listing for deletion nominations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Items may be cross-listed here to allow automated archiving. (as of 2007-11-22)

Football

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mršić

Simon Mršić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: can't find any evidence online that he's played in a professional match yet. No significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources online, only the Transfer-Sport profile that says he was signed to NK Osijek, but nothing in that reference about appearances. Ruby Murray 16:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have no doubt this will be controversial, but I feel that the "Keep" opinions here are weak and not rooted in policy. For instance, one is a completely unsupported reference that the nomination statement is false. Another is a duplicate vote. The only one that would give me pause is the sources listed by User:Hmlarson. However, with one exception they don't appear to be "reliable sources", in the Wikipedia meaning of that term. The exception would be the ESPN source, but the extensive discussion makes it clear there is no consensus on whether to accept that as reliable (and it's out of scope for here, try WT:RS to argue over that specific example), and in any case one source isn't the multiple sources required by policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cal South

Cal South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This amateur youth and adult sports association doesn't have sufficient substantial and independent RS coverage about the association itself to meet our notability requirements. Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is an amateur youth and adult sports association. What is your basis for describing it as other? Are you asserting it is not amateur? Not for youth and adults? Not a sports association? I think what you asserted is untrue. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list already exists on the United States Youth Soccer Association page. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence why I said it would be a spin-off. However, as I've said, my preferred outcome would still be to delete. GiantSnowman 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if the (few) individual articles are deleted do we not want to delete {{US Youth Soccer State Associations}} as well? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, we should take it to WP:TFD once the AFDs are closed. GiantSnowman 11:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1] for one. The ESPN one was a bit short. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated, Topdrawersoccer does not look to be a RS and ESPN is a blog. GiantSnowman 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giant here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ESPN is the biggest sport media outlet on the planet. Their "blog" is hardly some acne-faced teen posting from their basement. There's nothing in WP:GNG that precludes ANY blogs specifically, let alone news articles posted to the "blog" of the biggest sports media outlet on the planet. What's the basis for saying that Topdrawersoccer does not look to be a RS? Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are there indicia of Topdrawersoccer being an RS? What is its staff? What is its editorial oversight? I understand that one guy -- "an avid soccer fan, coach and parent" -- created it. That's all. Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are ESPN blogs that different from Huffington Post blogs, which I have written for, or any similar site? GiantSnowman 11:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's different. ESPN is probably the largest sports media operation in the world, and it's only the sports arm of one of the biggest media empires in the world. Huffington Post is a small low-key website. It's like comparing the BBC Home Service to Radio Caroline. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz -- you failed to respond ... Where are there indicia of Topdrawersoccer being an RS? What is its staff? What is its editorial oversight? One guy -- "an avid soccer fan, coach and parent" -- created it. What editorial oversight and staff does it have? I see no evidence of any. So why do you view it as an RS, and a basis for your !vote? Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @Nfitz: Huffington Post is not a "small low-key website" - it is actually the top 'popular political website' in the world according to this. Try again. GiantSnowman 17:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do confess @GiantSnowman: that I'm surprised at how fast it's grown for something that's not been around that long. Though looking into it more, I'd think that would probably speak to Huffington potentially being a reliable source, despite being a blog. Still, at only about 800 employees it's a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation, about 1/10 the size of ESPN alone, let alone the 175,000 employees of the entire Walt Disney Company. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz -- you again failed to respond to me ... Does your silence mean you have no defense for your !vote relying on Topdrawersoccer as an RS? Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it simply means that I hadn't noticed your comments, as they got lost behind GiantSnowman's comments. Your looking for indicia. Referring to WP:GNG in what way does that article not meet WP:GNG. The writer is well known, professional, and has been around for a while; the article is detailed, has significant coverage, addresses the topic directly and in detail. The details of the article are verifable. The writer is independent of the subject. Not sure what you think the issue here is. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this parent has a self-published website, and he has been "around for a while", and he is well known to you, does not make his self-published source an RS. Nor does detail and direct coverage by this parent make his work an RS. There is no editorial coverage oversight as far as what I can see -- this is a standard self-published non-RS. Please look at the definition of RSs to understand what I am saying. Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep highlighting parent? How is that relevant? Is this some kind of WP:BIAS? How do you even know that Daniel Robertson is a parent, because I'm not seeing any information on that. You seem to be trying to downplay the writer's credentials. He's a professional sports writer ... I doubt this was a professional piece, but that's hardly the case when you look at other material. Self-published? This isn't his website. Why do you say there is no editorial oversight? The website would suggest otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is how the publication describes itself. "Robert Ziegler, an avid soccer fan, coach and parent, began taking an academic interest in our broken pre-professional soccer system." No mention of editorial oversight or staff whatsoever. A key aspect of an RS is that it have that. Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
didn't write the article though ... I've made no references to him. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree. The ref is a non-RS. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the company is irrelevant - you can have a RS that is 1 person, or a company of 5 people; just as a company of thousands can be non-RS (i.e. Daily Mail) - Nfitz you are not actually dealing with the issues we are raising namely that this organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. GiantSnowman 17:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you dismiss sources, not based on their merits, but simply because they are a 'blog'. I'm not discussing this organization in terms of ESPN ... I already dismissed that source for other reasons - I'm simply pointing out that your dismissal of ESPN, simply because it's a blog, while not entirely relevant to this debate, denotes that you fail to fully comprehend WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am dismissing it as a source per WP:SPS. GiantSnowman 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can eliminate the entire content of http://espn.go.com/espn/blogs as a source per WP:SPS. Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, sources discussing the organization "to some extent" is not sufficient under wp notability rules; and here, the sources that are independent fail to provide "significant coverage". Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimo Nadeem

Dimo Nadeem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails sports notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Wildy Louis

Jean Wildy Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have moved the Guardian reference over to Paul Scally as suggested. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Liptrott

Alan Liptrott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I apparently created this article in my early days on WP (although I have no specific recollection of doing so :-P). Eight years on I don't believe the subject meets notability requirements. He is a football fan who was banned from his team's home stadium for a few years after a dispute with the club's chairman over, well, it was never actually made clear, and, erm, that's it basically. IMO he doesn't meet WP:GNG and the article probably falls under WP:BLP1E (although even the one event didn't really get significant coverage). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherko Kareem

Sherko Kareem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and Redirect. On the grounds that redirects are cheap. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-National League Futsal Malaysia 2014-2015

Pro-National League Futsal Malaysia 2014-2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page already exists in a much better written format as National Futsal League Malaysia 2014-15. There is no reason for this version of the page to exist, Snood1205 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it being commonly called the "Pro-National League Futsal Malaysia" anywhere. It seems as if the author made up that name to try to create the article. Snood1205 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why redirect? There's no indication why "Pro-National" was part of the article name, no previous usage of this in other seasons that I see, nor can I see anything on the Internet? Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Fisher

Iain Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article notes that only professional appearance was for Ayr in 2009 in a Division 2 match. Not only can I not find verification of this (or lack of verification of this after too long of a search ... why is it so hard to find Scottish results from only 4 years ago ...) but more importantly, even if it did happened, the old Division 2 isn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Verification of his appearance can be found here, but it's irrelevant as Scottish Division 2 was not fully-professional. GiantSnowman 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FK Sarajevo season

2011–12 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTSTATS. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No attempt at sourced prose. Article only encourages similar unsourced repositories. C679 08:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following pages under the same rationale:
2012–13 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013–14 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 08:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article does not fail WP:NSEASONS which mentions only "top professional leagues" not FULLY professional leagues. Agree WP:NOTSTATS is an issue here, but no indication that this is not a notable subject, given that in each occasion the club was playing in its country's top flight, finished high up the league, is an established club in that division and qualified for continental competition. Needs sourced prose added not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – NSEASONS also provides that "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory". These articles do not fulfil this. Meeting NSEASONS is not about picking and choosing, but an article should meet the whole guideline. These ones do not. C679 20:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - keep per Fenix down. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how you feel WP:NSEASONS is met, in light of the fact there is no "well-sourced prose"? C679 05:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because NSEASONS says "should" not "must". Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument here. You agree NOTSTATS is an issue, and write that it "does not fail" NSEASONS, without providing any policy-based reasons to keep it. C679 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in what way it's not met? WP:NSEASONS says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.. This team is in the top professional league in Bosnia (note, that NSEASONS doesn't say fully-professional, just professional). Sure, it needs improvement, and some more prose. But that's grounds to improve the article, not delete it. Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I covered this in the opening statement., as of course this is the reason for nominating it in the first place. C679 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain it simply, for not so bright people like myself then. Your only issue as far as I can see, is that it's missing a bit of prose, which isn't a firm requirement in itself. Surely your position then would lead to conclusion that article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anel Škoro

Anel Škoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a football player who hasn't played in a fully professional league and coverage of whom does not satisfy the general notability guideline. C679 08:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ott

Mike Ott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't played in a fully professional league or played for a national team - fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

The article claims he made his international debut in June 2013. He was called up to a match against Hong Kong but he didn't make it onto the field. Hack (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I could have sworn an Azkals player with the surname "Ott" played at least once (although I cannot recall if this is the player in question). Regardless, he appears to have received some coverage in reliable sources, foreign ones even. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Fair enough, Delete per above, and for not playing in a professional league or for a national team. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still fails the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Sources provided by Agathoclea are still about the transfer of the player and gives a bit of background to it rather than being directly and detailed about the player which is what you need to satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since he has never played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, the article fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received is routine sport journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Sources provided above to support GNG seem very short to me. not convinced they are significant enough. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Veria F.C. season

2013–14 Veria F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTSTATS. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No attempt at sourced prose. Article only encourages similar unsourced repositories. C679 04:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page under the same rationale:
2014–15 Veria F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 04:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - both would be notable is overhauled, but in their current state they are not and nobody seems willing/able to solve the many problems. Better to delete and re-start from scratch in due course. GiantSnowman 08:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to fix the problems over here, could you mention them to me and I'd be glad to try fixing them Panos 12:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a typical season article for a top-tier professional club. It might need a bit of prose, but I'm not really seeing a lot of difference when looking at current seasons of other teams such as 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season and 2013–14 Swansea City A.F.C. season. There is recent work on the article and User:PanosBonJov has expressed a willingness to fix article. Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is a record for a club playing in a top professional league as required by WP:NSEASONS, see no reason why sourced prose cannot be added. Agree with Nfitz that the state of the article is nearly identical to that of many others. Needs improving, but no reason whatsoever given current consensus to consider this as a non-notable subject. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what "current consensus" you refer to, but I do know that WP:NSEASONS asserts that "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory" which clearly indicates that the articles in their current state are specifically outside of the scope of the guideline. GNG isn't claimed to be met either, so there don't appear to be any remaining arguments to keep the article. C679 20:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Woodard (soccer coach)

Ray Woodard (soccer coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

High school coach. won an award. no indication that the award is notable or the coach is either John from Idegon (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Jones

AfDs for this article:
Gérard Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about an individual who is a youth football coach and an entrepreneur, but without any serious claim to notability. The article is essentially a glorified CV designed to promote the subject. Easily fails the subject specific WP:NFOOTBALL, and I don't think there's enough serious coverage to pass WP:GNG. If we were to have articles for all provincial sports coaches and budding entrepreneurs we'd be up to our eyeballs with articles like this. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a good article based on an entrepreneur and football coach who has recently won the JCI UK TOYP award and holds 1000-1 odds to become a future England Manager. Perhaps more 'reliable' sources need sourcing to help with the credibility of the article but certainly a noteworthy article of a credible person. Definitely not promotional, more informational just like other articles. There are certainly more articles of football coaches that have achieved less that aren't up for deletion. Is this 'discrimination' against Gerard Jones? Looking at the criteria for notable player, he doesn't meet this but he has shown from his entrepreneurial and coaching accomplishments that he meets wider requirements. The comment regarding notability, he has featured in respected national and regional newspapers, and been published in Bank magazines and business books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.34.62 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A promotional C.V. His achievements are so mundane it is amazing to see how it can be spun into a whole article. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Add. It has already been deleted and was recreated, with identical content from the look of the first AFD.
  • Keep - From what I have read, it looks like an interesting article about a young man clearly trying to work hard to become someone, why we aren't encouraging this is beyond me?

It doesn't appear in any way promotional, and I see nothing but excitement at reading how a young yorkshireman has done something for himself! I wonder why people are being 'ciber' bullies on here? Instead of deleting, we should be looking for a solution which is to help make the article better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.34.62 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote multiple votes. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Tagizade

Ruslan Tagizade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. @Nicat49:, the number of times he has played is not relevant, as he has not played in a league currently deemed to be a FPL. What is required are sources indicating significant, reliable coverage of the individual. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I leaned towards a 'keep' close but there is sufficient disagreement as to whether WP:BASIC/WP:BLP1E apply that I can't quite call it a consensus. It seems clear to me that as long as we don't have a malicious motive publishing details of his legal trouble is not libel - however IANAL so remain open to correction. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Keith

Jeremy Keith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request via OTRS 2011121310011536 - This article deals mainly with the offence committed in 2007. In five days time this offence will be classed as spent under UK Law

(Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
1974 CHAPTER 53
An Act to rehabilitate offenders who have not been reconvicted of any serious offence for periods of years, to penalise the unauthorised disclosure of their previous convictions, to amend the law of defamation, and for purposes connected therewith.).

It will then become libellous to publish that information. Just to remove the conviction data would leave a very poor article that is unlikely to ever expand. Bit of a WP:BLP1E  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act situation has little currency for me as I am not beholden to British law (nor is Wikipedia in general), although, in the interests of accuracy, the law only forbids the publication of spent convictions with malice (which wouldn't apply here regardless). On the other hand, this is pretty much a canonical WP:BLP1E/WP:CRIME situation, unless there are some appropriate sources that I'm unable to find. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E does not apply here:
  • Reliable sources covered Mr. Keith in more than the context of a single event. His purchase of Derby County F.C., his involvement in the management of the club over the 2 1/2 years he was a director, and his legal difficulties were all covered by reliable sources.
Which aspect of WP:CRIME do you think is relevant?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to provide samples of the independent, reliable sources that nontrivially discuss this subject in other capacities? Of the sources currently cited in the article, all but two are related to the criminal charge. Of the remaining two, I see no reason to consider CompanyCheck a reliable source. The BBC is generally reliable, but the BBC link is a interview with the subject bereft of any analysis or commentary, and so is arguably not independent. My efforts to locate such sources were not successful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the BBC interview is not independent of the subject for the purposes of WP:BASIC? What do you mean by other capacities? Other than a defendant in the trial or other than an owner and director of Derby County?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what should be done with the material in the Financial Irregularities section? It's not in the Derby County article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need including. GiantSnowman 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those events and the trial in particular received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy or guideline that leads you to think that a person's notability must be independent of his association with an organization?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, WP:NOTINHERITED. Members of a notable organization are not, for example, inherently notable on their own. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's different from requiring a person's notability to be independent of his involvement with the organization. He would not be notable simply for being an owner and director of a notable football club. He's notable because he meets WP:BASIC.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Derby County F.C.. This seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E, as "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Outside of this event, he only received passing mentions in articles about Derby County. The BBC source doesn't establish notability because a) it's a single source and b) it's a local source. But, as GiantSnowman suggests, this could be a search term, so a redirect is appropriate. Moswento talky 08:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply. He doesn't meet the second condition of BLP1E. He was not a low-profile individual.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He meets WP:BASIC for coverage of his time as owner and director of Derby County (See:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) as well as for coverage of the trial.
  1. Legal Wikipedia must adhere to United States law but does not try to follow the laws of all other countries. The laws of the UK are not a valid reason for deletion. Also Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) has explained that the British law only prohibits publication with malice, which doesn't apply.
  2. BLP1E This policy does not apply to Mr. Keith because he was covered by reliable sources for more than a single event and he is not a low-profile individual.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I fail to see evidence that playing in the NSW Super League confers notability on a club. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dulwich Hill FC

Dulwich Hill FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NTEST and WP:GNG. an amateur club that plays in 4th tier Australian league. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oz football is not an independent source. Club lacks third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ozfootball not an independent source? Interesting statement. Similar to a statement on your user page referring to Sydney Morning Herald since 1919 facsimiles being available on Google; this is correct, but the Google newspaper archive is practically not searchable, either due to poor OCR, or shoddy transformation of OCR results into a database.
Back to the point: why note somebody make it short and swift and propose deletion of the article NSW Super League as a not relevant league. Once this is successful, all clubs that did not make it beyond it should be quasi automatically irrelevant for WP purposes. This spares us bumming around if in one or the other case "notoriety" is sufficiently documented or not. This will turn into a quality control issues if NSW Super League survives. OAlexander (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ozfootball would not be regarded as a third party source under WP:RS, the site even states it is made by soccer fans. has the dulwich hill club been reported significantly in mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um...wait, what? "made by soccer fans" does not mean that a source is "not a third party source"; that statement is utterly nonsensical. It may not be a reliable source but it is not a primary source. (The seemingly increasing misunderstandings of what Wikipedia means by "primary source" and "secondary/third-party source", among long-term editors no less, are starting to become concerning.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant not an independent source. A site made by soccer fans would of course include coverge of soccer clubs. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::Sports publications tend to be made by people that are interested in sports, as political publications are made by people with a cursory interest there. Ozfootball is the standard of historical record that is available for Australian association football. If the league is relevant, so should be its members. The scope of my co-operation here is so, that I also contribute to Australian football - notably not to A-League relate topics - as I get to it. It is not so, that I am now going to trawl around to find finer points in support for this article, just because some are going wild about it. I have got something like wider interests and a life. I deem the topic relevant and sufficiently of historic interest, also in more general terms such as in immigration and related contexts. In spirit I am an exclusionist, but the problem is at the control of new entries: I hate nigh meaningless articles coming in as stubs - thereof are enough around - and omitting important information on the topic. And most of these will remain stubs, as there is not enough manpower. The article here could be better, but for the purpose of it provides sufficient information. I would be glad, if I could now go on about more productive issues, rather than playing savious r here for the sake of it. Australian soccer has the problem that even on top level it is - I speak outside of WP - poorly documented and often very difficult to research. Characters of the "Simpsons" of-course have no such problems. I remain of the opinion, that Australian third division team is relevant in an encyclopaedia of the scope of WP, notwithstanding how thoroughly it is researched in this point and time. Again, my suggestion to propose the deletion of the Super League article: if the members are not relevant it can be doffed with a short paragraph in an overview article. OAlexander (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wish to annotate, that the NSW Football association considers the Super League as historic extension of the first division, which before the introduction of the National Soccer League was a top tier in Australian football (http://www2.soccernsw.com/index.php?id=77). OAlexander (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clubs competing below the second level in Australia will struggle to get any meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Judging by the news coverage I can find, the club seems to get more coverage for the state of its pitch than anything else. Hack (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NOTTEMP. Club previously played in the NSW Super League which it seems is enough for a club to be considered notable. Had they not and were they being judged instead on their current standings then I don't think that would be sufficient. But at several points in their 46-year history (including last year) the club has competed at a fairly high level where almost every club is blue-linked. Plug "Super League" and "Dulwich Hill" into Google and you get plenty of state and national media coverage about the club, various players and matches against other clubs. Lots of passing references there but it's enough for me. Stalwart111 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Gets a few hits on Google from sources close to the subject such as the state football federation and on Fox Sports Pulse, a stats site used by Football NSW. Searching Fairfax News Store, Factiva and Ebsco's Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, the only serious coverage in state or national media is passing references to former players and a controversy over their home ground which doesn't deal with the club in any serious detail. Hack (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - relevant as member of NSW Super League, which by Football NSW is carried as extension of former NSW Division 1, formerly a top tier in Australian football until. Currently third tier, which however should be relevant in a country with size and footballing standing of Australia. If NSW Super League membership does not infer relevance, all article of clubs that did not make it beyond it should be deleted by definition, and article NSW Super League ought to be deleted too (equitability). 72 times mentioned on Ozfootball Net, the leading reference of Australian football history. To boot, relevant for Southern European migration, here from Madeira, to Australia. More than ten links from articles within WP. OAlexander (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot !vote twice. 72 mentions in ozfootball does not establish notability. Needs coverage in sources independent of football. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is so much that sources need to be provided that are removed from football, merely that they must be significant and reliable, wherever they are. The results that OzFootball seem to pull back seem to me to be nothing more than stats, and do nothing to confirm GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also number of pages linking to this article is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It plays a role. I have read that. I am not that well with the abbreviations. OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Ozfootball is only atats is concerned, a great deal of articles here are practically only stats. Many people are to busy with filling out infoboxes and pasting flagicons for more. OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - as I said, "lots of passing references". I think the claim to notability here is that the club competed in the NSW Super League. Were they competing in that league now I don't think we would be having this conversation. Playing in that league almost guarantees significant coverage in reliable sources, even if it can't be found online. During regular seasons they appear on the backs of myriad regional papers covering this game and that. It's unrealistic to expect that other clubs playing at that level would have received such coverage but this one didn't. I also think it's a bit silly that this would become one of the only clubs to have played at that level to be red-linked. Stalwart111 00:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:AUD, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Hack (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and if we were talking about coverage in local community newsletters I would agree with you. We're talking about regional papers and some major metropolitan papers. Papers like the Sun Herald and Sunday Telegraph, for example, regularly cover secondary leagues (soccer and rugby league). But the coverage wasn't actually my point. I believe the club is notable for having played at that level, as most of the others seem to be for having played at that level. Stalwart111 02:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what level they play, if they haven't been the subject of significant coverage, they shouldn't have an article. Where is the proof that the club is notable? Hack (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same premise as WP:NFOOTY - a player need not have been the subject significant coverage because there is a general acceptance that at that level, the competition you play in and the team you play for will have received sufficient coverage so that individual player articles are justified, even if the directly-relevant coverage is only an occasional passing mention in coverage of the league or the team. The same could undoubtedly be said for almost every other club in this league. Stalwart111 03:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Players meeting WP:NFOOTY are generally presumed to meet WP:GNG although there are precedents for players having articles deleted because there is no proof of meeting WP:GNG. There is no equivalent guideline or policy for clubs - they must meet WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's partially covered at WP:FOOTYN but I suppose my suggestion is that we apply WP:COMMONSENSE more than anything else. By deleting the article the club would become one of only a couple of clubs to have played in the NSW Super League without an article here. The rest seemingly have articles because of a presumption of notability not dissimilar to the one I outlined above. I strongly doubt many of the clubs at the same level would have any more coverage than this one (having created Northern Tigers FC myself as part of a red link reduction effort I can guarantee a similar situation there). If the prevailing view is that such clubs aren't presumed to be notable, I can live with that. But it seems disingenuous to delete one on that basis, creating a gap for readers, while the others (including the one I started) remain. For the record, if that is the consensus then I'd be happy for that one to be deleted also. Few, if any, of those clubs likely meet the criteria at WP:FOOTYN. My aim here is consistency of application rather than some new consensus. Stalwart111 04:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get too carried away with FOOTYN, it's generally agreed not to be in the best shape for notability discussions, and in this instnace, no club in this league could meeti t as it is not a national league. I would concentrate on the main issue here which is that there is a lack of significant reliable coverage outside of routine match reporting and local newspapers. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When English fourth tier players with six matches there, such as Callum O'Dowda and Craig Lynch, are considered relevant for the inclusion here, without having accrued any additional notoriety but merely by inference of playing for the club, then I am more than sure that Oz third division clubs are relevant without specific individual notoriety, but for their membership in the third tier.
This aside, the hole argument here seems to me another expression of the talibanisation of WP where little acknowledgement is received for writing decent articles. Then the discussions about application of rules in whichever way become the only way of interacting with fellow editors. A bit like meetings in dysfunctional office environments. Some may even think, harsh application is way up on some perceived career ladder. It is an outcome of the structure.
I find the whole discussion here fairly absurd. I found my excursion into reading Australia third tier articles informative, use educational if you want. It gave me a bit of an idea of what Australian soccer is about when we are not talking the clubs about we know everything anyway, because they are so notorious in the press. I wish the "community", whoever that is, lots of pleasure weeding out the rest of the third tier clubs if they want to do that - none of the have much "notoriety" beyond local rags. In their entirety they were very informative about the state of the world's #1 sport in Australia. I plead to retain them It would be also quite unfair to do so otherwise towards the people who saw other third division articles and felt encouraged to contribute. But humanity can be expected of only a few here. Not part of the industry. Process here remains dismal. Which is sad. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For all of those words, there is still no proof of notability. Hack (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I find the whole discussion here fairly absurd" Wikipedia is not a collection of articles because WP:ILIKEIT. Your claims for notability have been clearly refuted. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be reasonable to rule, that Oz third division clubs are notable by definition. I and other opponents of the proposition hold this for right and reasonable. It is about the conclusive presentation of a a topic, here football in Australia which should be in the foreground in alignment with the general educational purpose underlying the WP project. @LibStar: I don't see myself refuted. Without overarching concepts of notability, like being part of a notable group, we may well end up in a myriad essentially not very helpful deletion propositions. I am not unreasonable here.OAlexander (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be reasonable to do so? Current consensus per WP:FOOTYN is that clubs are only inherently considered notable if they have taken part in a national league or cup competition, this club has not, so fails that consensus. Additionally, no sources have been provided beyond stat archives to show any significant level of coverage. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" that Oz third division clubs are notable by definition" you are inventing notability criterion to suit your preference. No notability definition under WP:N says that. Time to WP:LETGO LibStar (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't wish to focus my attention on all kinds of discussions, but rather constructive content for users. I understand, that arguments for keep here are probably the weaker ones. On the other side I, and a couple of colleagues believe the article should be retained. I, eg., found this discussion by reading the article out of interest. It provided a service to me for which I am grateful. WP rules allow for flexibility and I suggest, positive consideration will be given here. The seemingly endless discussion here about notably destruction and not creation is unbecoming, notwithstanding who is right or wrong - and only suitable for fulltime WPedians. I do not wish to fail to add, that I have hitherto substantially contributed across several language editions and Commons. Thank you very much for the attention. OAlexander (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football&oldid=605313696"