Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

For American football, see WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football

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:

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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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 speedy Delete per admin Bbb23. (Page created by a Sock G5) (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Kallaste

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

no sense of gng met. yes played in national team but nfooty does not exclude gng. Quek157 (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He passes NFOOTY so? --IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Disclaimer: I am the author of the subjects article. --IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, when articles passes WP:NFOOTY, we can think that it passes WP:GNG. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there is one citation on the page, it clearly shows the player played for the national team which qualifies WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY as per This and there is a article in German Wiki here which is better and this article can be expanded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is listed in a number of websites on football as having played for the national side in international matches, [1][2][3], and per WP:NFOOTY, the notability of those who have played for a national team is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria (therefore yes, it is assumed that he would satisfy GNG). If it is difficult to find online sources, it would be due more to the time he played in (1920s), and the language (Estonian) rather than an actual absence of sources. Hzh (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can we have some sort of sources that are not stated , some coverage. perm stub may be . Quek157 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian sports biography - [4]. Hzh (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Rudolf Kallaste in German Wiki.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on my understanding, FOOTY is the only subject based notablity guideline that need to meet GNG also. Wikipedia is never a R/S. The others are just saying that it might have significant coverage based on national team, that's a hypothesis. Anyway, his caps are way too low and goals are also, hence, I don't think there is any coverage. Hey, you don't cover one low cap player unnecessary and we have much more qualified players who got rejected previously at AFC. In addition, I know that there is a German Wikipedia source, but there are only external links back to what is being presented, which are mere X played in national team games. And are those games "A" international by defition, they may be "B" internationals or whatsoever, the pages you all cited still doesn't meet the mark. That German wiki page is much more complete, with Bio and anything, why not just keep to it than a permanent stub here? In addition, to address the issue of date of sources, I know many sources are not online, but shall we INDISCRIMATELY put up articles based on a "possible" source out there, than many BLP will be written from decades ago using such sources. That's my worry if a dangerous preceedence is set here. If there are at least some sources we can then use ANYBIO, but this does not even cut it. Do note that the creator of the article has many articles now under PROD. Just mine is challenged so it is now here. I also think so "Generally, when articles passes WP:NFOOTY, we can think that it passes WP:GNG" but if that is, we will need to accept all those articles we rejected by Das osmnezz which will be the implications of this AFD as many rejects are based on it doesn't met. I just want to make this clear. 10 (0) A 10 capped player (outfield) without any goals isn't gonna get much coverage, rather, negative coverage is likely and the stint is short (3 years). The player just played in 4 games as Baltic Cup, rest are friendlies, which means at most 4 "A" matches, and only 2 are wins, will a non scoring player in a losing team get coverage? No assists either. Guys, this cannot make it into GNG. The online sources presented above all repeat the same stastics (not coverage) but should there be any sources in newspaper, it will be "XXX fails to score", "XXX removed from roster", shall we turn this into attack page? or a total negative POV fork page? And yes, the German wiki is totally uncited and unsourced, translation will not do any good, the sources are the same we have now --Quek157 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I SNOW close this AfD, it is wasting time. He passes NFOOTY so no point in having this discussion. --IAWI (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Israeli Beach Soccer League

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

These pages are beautiful and informative. However they are all basically unreferenced and I can't find RS secondary coverage in either English or in feeble attempts to do so in Hebrew. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I've actually watched a few games over the years on TV, also all the match reports are external links which are in Hebrew know, which I can only partially understand. However it's more than enough to pass WP:GNG through the external link citations in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the games are showed on tv helps with GNG to me. It seems like all the match reports are from one website which is why I didn't just assume GNG. Is there coverage beyond that one website? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well the website, Sport 5, is actually a TV Station in Israel, it's fairly large coverage in Israel so notability with be local to Israel and those that know about it, they do have some presence in Europe. You would have to check on ratings which I don't know about. Coverage will all be notability towards Israel mainly, but some Jewish organisations around the world have covered parts at sometimes like the Jewish Chronicle in England, however the citations are going to be Israeli based news services which will be harder for English search engines to pick-up on. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (

comment are you advocating this page be deleted or are you requesting that it be improved? Egaoblai (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai: I brought them here because I don't think they meet guidelines. If I am wrong, well OK, and if they are improved as a way of showing I"m wrong, all the better.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – Once I finally worked out how to (even just roughly) translate to Hebrew, I came across a number of Israeli websites/news outlets that report on the league [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. TurboGUY (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If we cannot verify notability, we cannot claim it as an attribute of the subject. Whether or not we "have watched [the games] on TV" or the text is "beautifully written" is completely immaterial. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my keep all comment on the 4th, here are some more articles I found in Israeli media, specifically reporting on the start of the 2018 season yesterday [13], [14], [15], [16]. And this final link appears to be TV listings regarding the broadcast of matches in Israel (thought it might be relevant to what has been said in previous comments) [17]. TurboGUY (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last link will expire at midnight so I've saved it in the web archive [18] TurboGUY (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 13 sources, most of which I uncovered during my WP:BEFORE it feels like only two of them actually help to establish notability, which leads to one RS article for the 2017 and one for the 2018 seasons. The rest simply help to prove that this league exists (was never in question) and is broadcast on TV (which on its own doesn't mean it's notable). The league itself is most definitely notable in my opinion (hence why it was not bundled here) but the individual seasons do not appear to be (WP:BOMBARD) and the lack of coverage in outlets even when its televised actually helps to reinforce this view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Can't see how this is notable enough for a set of articles. Number 5 7 08:45, 12 June 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QPR vs Manchester City

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

Not a notable football match on its own; the only refs are contemporaneous match coverage. The title isn't one that can reasonable redirect to 2011-12 Premier League. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a notable game for Manchester City's season that's why it's mentioned on 2011–12 Manchester City F.C. season article. I don't think this game merits an article on it's own. Govvy (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would incline towards delete, the game was notable in that it changed the outcome of the season in much the same was as the 1989 Liverpool Arsenal match which has its own article. It could be said the Joey Barton incident was rather significant, although the article as it stands does not really cover this.. However for the article to be kept I think more would need to be done to show its long term impact (eg I have seen a couple of TV programmes mention this as one of the most significant and memorable games since the Premiership started and if print references could be found which have made similar comments then an argument for keep could be made), as well as more background about the significance on the day (eg reference to Manchester United winning a few minutes earlier and Manchester United players waiting on the pitch to see if they had won the title). Dunarc (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, the awful title needs changing, given that QPR have played Man City over 50 times -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with that, not least as the home teams name should always come first. The 1989 title decider's article is Liverpool F.C. 0–2 Arsenal F.C. (26 May 1989) so a varient on Manchester City 3-2 QPR (13 May 2012), would seem like an option. Dunarc (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2018 (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 Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator (IAWI). --IAWI (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Castro

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

Not relevant sports person. IAWI (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. No RS from my side either.--Biografer (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY by making his debut in the fully-professional United Soccer League a few days ago. As a young talent, he has also received media coverage as a part of his club Atlanta United 2, as well as representing the Honduras youth national team at the worldwide stage. JTtheOG (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is part of a reserve team. If this qualifies him to pass the guidelines for notability for football players, they are clearly too broad and need to be revised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. As with above comment, I believe playing for reserve teams that play in the league pyramid of their country is fine - but not for the likes of Premier League/Serie A reserve teams who play in their own league structure. E.g. players who play for the likes of Barcelona B (when in the Segunda División) are (seemingly) accepted to pass WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obviously biased as I created the page, but he is clearly notable as he passes WP:NFOOTY. The United Soccer League is a professional league and he has played one game in it. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 18:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers 2018 (winter)

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

OR/GNG/SYNTH/LISTCRUFT/FANCRFUT and etc. Another such articles. Quek157 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilnae867 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this we have an entire AFD for the past few list and others are up for AFD with unanimous (almost) consensus that it should be deleted. --Quek157 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is AFD? And how do i need to do for this article to be a permanent? (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a AFD already, is likely to be a gone case when the rest are closed. --Quek157 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth another week of discussion given the ultimate fate of the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we often keep the list of football transfers of professional leagues, and since Myanmar's league is considered fully professional, I do not see why this article is inappropriate, all the content is fully sourced. Article needs improving not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is a notable topic and that sources are collating this information. Eldumpo (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The similar lists of Myanmar football were already nominated for deletion. One creator (Modernrocker4) even blocked for continuously adding unsourced content. If the list can't even had external source as citation, i think we should not keep the list. Matthew_hk t c 16:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this 2018 winter list alone. I am really not sure quoting https://www.facebook.com/ShanUtdFC/ is reliable or not. It did not have blue tick so it may be a fans page rather than official football club facebook page. Either it is truly official, it still a primary source which lacks of GNG secondary coverage. Matthew_hk t c 16:45, 16 June 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bel'ange Epako

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although sad he died so young sadly there really isn't enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and I'm not seeing anything to meet WP:GNG either. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish football transfers summer 2018

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

Yet another fail LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT/SYNTH/OR/NOTDIRECTORY/GNG Quek157 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LISTCRUFT and pretty useless article in general. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the main reason of the nomination for deletion? I'm preparing this article like previous ones (eg. List of Polish football transfers summer 2017 and List of Polish football transfers winter 2016–17). Ryba842 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge These articles are typically notable and would usually be placed as part of the league article. No problem merging it back into the league article, but there's no reason why this information shouldn't be kept somewhere. I don't really know how any of the NOTs nominator used apply, but listcruft is also absolutely wrong, as this is a specific encyclopaedic list that likely passes WP:GNG if sourced properly. SportingFlyer talk 21:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - transfer activity in a fully professional league such as this is likely to garner sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists of football transfers are frequently covered in news and other independent websites, therefore it should qualify under WP:LISTN, however much I may dislike the proliferation of lists in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is a notable topic worthy of a list. Yes, there are references that individual transfers have taken place, but these largely seem to be based on very brief reports on 90minut.pl and there is no evidence that these are being collated elsewhere and are worthy of inclusion as a list here. Eldumpo (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we often keep the list of transfers that occur in professional leagues, this article should be kept. Article needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is clearly popping into the article and it looks to me like it should pass WP:GNG, I really don't like the format of the article know and feel it needs re-organising and improving. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a first-tier league info and quite useful. The problem is only that out of total 46 references, 44 are cited from same website. It is like seeing a summary (in english) of that website --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fully pro league, we have for long a series of these transfers lists for many leagues FkpCascais (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)every tansfer window, no reason to delete this one.[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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian football transfers summer 2018

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

WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/OR/SYTH/LISTN and no RS to meet GNG. Per all the rest of the preceedence. Sad can't speedy this Quek157 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the proper season article. SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - transfer activity in a fully professional league such as this is likely to garner sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - list of transfers is common enough in news and football sites to warrant it own article per WP:LISTN. Hzh (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Whilst I don’t read Farsi it appears the references are just brief reports confirming (presumably) that the transfers happened, rather than sources that list/collate the transfers in the manner that is presented in the article. Eldumpo (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we often keep the list of transfers that occur in professional leagues, and Iran's top league is considered fully professional by this WikiProject. There are also plenty of more articles here (Category:Lists of Iranian football transfers) so for consistency this article should be kept. Article needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I generally would go with Fenix Down argument for keeping pro-league football transfer lists. However I feel the Iranian league has a bit of a barrier between notability compared to other leagues around the world along with a language barrier issues. If this was the Farsi part of wikipedia I would say keep, but this is English Wiki and I am not so sure. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2018 (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. Sandstein 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijan football transfers summer 2018

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

Do we really need this??? Not much references, WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/SYNTH or whatsoever. Per preceedence of all the transfer lists Quek157 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the requisite Azerbaijan Premier League article. SportingFlyer talk 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saringkan Promsupa

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

Deleted 2 10 months ago via discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saringkarn Promsupa because subject fails WP:FOOTY. Copy pasted to mainspace during this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Saringkan Promsupa discussion. So here we are to discuss again. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still non-notable. Giant Snowman 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth coverage in sources such as FourFourTwo, Thai Rath Online and the evening news programmes of Thairath TV and PPTV likely satisfy the GNG. Less in-depth but still non-routine is the coverage of his potential transfer last year.[19][20][21][22] --Paul_012 (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was ten months ago, not two. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks my mistake. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources by Paul_012. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the subject just barely passes WP:GNG per the coverage mentioned above. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 8 June 2018 (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. Consensus is that the topic has generated enough coverage by independent reliable sources that it is encyclopedic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2034 FIFA World Cup

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

Per ~~WP:SNOWBALL~~ WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Drafty WP:TOOSOON. Hhkohh (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already meets WP:GNG. If the issue is to avoid speculative editing, that can be done with a large number of editors watching the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first bid's already in. The baby is born and it's a healthy article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes it's 16 years away (!) but there's enough information to justify an article, even if it never happens... Giant Snowman 10:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensing that 2034 is only 16 years away is both exhilarating and (a little) vertiginous, at least to these 20th century born eyes.

The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sportsfan 1234: did you mean to nominate based on WP:SNOWBALL, or did you intend to nominate based on WP:CRYSTALBALL? Iffy★Chat -- 11:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already sufficient coverage on the bidding process that it would be notable even if it didn't go ahead. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOWBALL is not a valid deletion rationale. Assuming nom meant WP:CRYSTALBALL, it still doesn't apply because there is ample information available. Smartyllama (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems valid enough to me and just scrapes GNG, don't know if I be alive then to watch it know!! Govvy (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information to warrant an article. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to FIFA World Cup: !voting' is not a headcount against or in the face of broad community consensus and WP:policies and guidelines. This is actually pretty funny. The deadline for filing is 2026 but something 16 years away is notable how? It flies-in-the-face of What Wikipedia is not in so many areas that includes future events, indiscriminate collection of information, or newspaper reporting because it is far WP:TOOSOON. If the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are examples of what is not acceptable for future events, or even the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 (found in WP:NOT) then we are trying to just slide down a slope that we can now include 2040 content, then 2050-60-70. Because there is other stuff does not give precedence for exemption over broad community consensus that is even included in the five pillars. Because there are news reports of events does not make them inherently acceptable for inclusion. An exception would be that the title and content improves Wikipedia. That would be an acceptable exclusion but that has not been argued and would be dubious. Anything else is just an attempt to open the door for "anything can be included with a source". This would not be so bad as we could stop having AFD's and just fill Wikipedia with anything. Otr500 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Semiquincentennial exists, though. It's notable enough to include at this point. Why? Because it has been covered in reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Future elections are a poor analogy as the next election will directly affect the following one and the frequency could be change. Whereas, the Also, an article for the 2028 Summer Olympics does exist. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I don't understand the nominator's argument either. However, an article about an event 16 years in the future defies WP:COMMONSENSE. I can understand having an article for the world cup in 2022, at least the location has been selected already, but everything in this article is speculation (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Countries have another 8 years to decide if they even want to submit a bid. I'd also support a selective merge (along with content from the 2026 & 2030 article which also should not exist) into something like Future World Cup bids.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a merge of the contested article into an article that does not exist? -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, but it would be a merge of three articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose merging the 2026 article with anything, since bidding has officially opened, bids have been officially submitted, and we will (probably) have a host in less than a month. There has also been significant coverage in reliable sources about the expansion to 48 teams in 2026, a unique situation that would justify its own article even if there weren't any bids yet. Nothing official has happened for 2030 or 2034, so perhaps we could merge those two, but concrete bids have been proposed for both even if the official channels to formally submit them haven't opened yet. You could make a stronger case for those two, though. Merging 2026 is ridiculous at this point, and I'm guessing Rusf10 didn't read that article or do any research before recommending the merge or he would have known that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We already have 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2030 FIFA World Cup. Why? Because they have been notably reported as future events, even though they are some ways into the future. One can check out the articles for details and sources. The 2034 FIFA World Cup has taken on substance through similar media reports and FIFA members' activity, specifically on the geopolitical, diplomatic level: Asian nations are already moving in for a collective bid. So, the subject's already notable. And everyone should be aware that FIFA's world cups are affairs of an always very long term nature. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers reporting that some countries have interest in submitting a bid is nothing but speculation, and an article about an event 16 years in the future is clearly either WP:FANCRUFT or a serious lack of WP:COMMONSENSE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2013, a prospect of Bahrain hosting the Cup in the next 50 years was mentioned, which surely isn't enough for an article 2062 FIFA World Cup. The 2034 situation is clearly different than that, but how different really? Enough for a standalone article, or a list and some prose concise enough to fit in a section of FIFA World Cup hosts? Almost all of the article's current information is already there, by the way. I'm undecided. --Theurgist (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are only concerned about WP:TOOSOON or WP:BALL, it is better to draftify (move article to draft space), or we will waste time in a few year to recreate it. Hhkohh (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be restored even if it was deleted, in any case, when the time to create the article comes, the available information will probably have changed, so there might be no or little useful content in the draft anyway... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't restore deleted article with a deletion discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with proper reasons (which would be the case once this article becomes something more than WP:A hell of a lot TOOSOON stuff), yes you can, see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Access_to_deleted_pages 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we should post to WP:DRV at that time? Hhkohh (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you wouldn't even need to do that - asking an administrator for a copy of the page (at the proper time) would also work 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No! It may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Hhkohh (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G4 explicitly doesn't apply to "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Once this isn't TOOSOON (in maybe a few years), there is nothing which prevents the page from being restored. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is good to me, but draftify is not harmful to me. Hhkohh (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already being discussed in multiple media articles and passes WP:GNG. This should only be deleted if if nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research, which it can currently. SportingFlyer talk 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant sports event, by now sufficiently covered in the media. gidonb (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: already sufficient coverage of the presumed bidding, so worth keeping at this point. The article would have been created at some point; no reason to delete it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is being discussed as noted by the references. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the evebt is set to take place after 16 years. The regular coverage about the subject makes it pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources on the bidding process making it notable and passes WP:GNG even if we destroy the world, a higher being ends life on earth, we're invaded by aliens or any other reason why it doesn't happen. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per The Gnome, the baby has been born with the first bid but there may also potentially be a player in the tournament who may not have been born yet! Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest player in this year's final is more than 19, and so it's unlikely that a 16-year-old will be playing in 2034, but point taken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of players have played in a World Cup after just turning 17 and many have played international football under this age so it's not inconceivable. This year is a poor showing that there aren't any players aged 18 or under. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we rename this to something like "Bids for the 2034 FIFA World Cup" until there's coverage of anything else relating to it? Currently the only content in this article is countries who are interested in bids and nothing beyond that. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2018 (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) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2015

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 and unsourced Hhkohh (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one --Quek157 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these. These lists are what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Pburka (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 2018 (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) 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2014

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 and unsourced Hhkohh (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one --Quek157 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014_Myanmar_National_League as it's valid information that should be kept somewhere. SportingFlyer talk 21:18, 25 May 2018 (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) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2017

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one --Quek157 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~The list was started by a blocked sockmaster which the concern was adding unsoucred material.~~ (edit: so far no SPI was started for linking Vilnae867 and Modernrocker4 00:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)) Unlike other big league which had a newspaper column dedicated to transfer market and have a page of transfer table, it seem in Myanmar, there is lack of such secondary source. The current state of the list was mostly citing primary source such as Yadanarbon F.C. and Ygn Utd. (Yangon United). Matthew_hk t c 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the tsunami hits the beach. -The Gnome (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 2018 (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) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2017

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

Unsourced and same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one , i prod this but declined just to note--Quek157 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list was started by a blocked sockmaster which the concern was adding unsoucred material. Unlike other big league which had a newspaper column dedicated to transfer market and have a page of transfer table, it seem in Myanmar, there is lack of such secondary source. (copying my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2017) Matthew_hk t c 06:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the tsunami hits the beach. -The Gnome (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 2018 (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) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2016

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one I proded but declined saying no consensus per afd --Quek157 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the tsunami hits the beach. -The Gnome (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 2018 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GlasgowBraveheart proved she meets WP:NFOOTBALL by having played for Scotland's senior team twice. Dougal18 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Hunter

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as she has yet to play for Scotland's senior team or a game between 2 clubs from fully pro leagues. Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources are anything other than routine coverage. Winning a goal of the month award is utterly irrelevant and can't be used to claim notability. Dougal18 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BIG KEEP - has represented her country. Updated the article with references - can we all remember to check facts before nominating articles for deletion...please? GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Hunter's two game 14 minute 5 years ago international "career". As did you when creating the page and all the other editors. When this is only discovered after 6 months and at AfD then that is troubling. Maybe you should include the whole facts in articles before someone nominates them at AfD .... please? Dougal18 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RBAC University Stadium

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT Hhkohh (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as original PRODder. I could not identify any in-depth reliable third-party coverage of the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT, no indication the ground has gained significant third party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University Stadium

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

Contested PROD. Subject is not covered in-depth by any third-party reliable source, thus failing the WP:GNG. Would not be an appropriate redirect to Chanthaburi F.C., since the football club simply rented use of the stadium from the university, and neither owns nor manages it. If anything, it should be redirected to Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University, but we don't have an article on the university. Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT, no indication the ground has gained significant third party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2018 (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 redirect to Aranyaprathet District#Stadium. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aranyaprathet District Stadium

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

Subject is not covered in-depth by any third-party reliable sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Contested PROD, with suggestion to merge to Sa Kaeo F.C. However, there's no content worth merging, as the stadium is already mentioned in the target article. I'm proposing that this would not an appropriate redirect either, as the stadium is neither a likely search term for the football club, nor is it a subtopic. The club simply rented the stadium for a year back in 2010, and probably did not have exclusive use. If anything, it should be redirected to Aranyaprathet District, but that wouldn't work either as it is not mentioned there. Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To surmount the obstacle perceived by the deletion nominator, change the Aranyaprathet District article slightly to mention the district's stadium. We are obliged to find wp:ATDs; here is a good one. Call that a Merge if you like. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aranyaprathet District#Stadium section I just created with this stub info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:19, 7 June 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfadli

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

Author dePROD without any reason, but still fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhkohh (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taufik Aqsar

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

Author dePROD without any reason, but still fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFOOTY and GNG[edit]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2018 (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 redirect to South Asian Football Federation. Content can be merged from page history or moved to draft. ansh 666 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAFF Club Championship

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

This is a proposed a tournament. There are no reliable sources that can confirm the starting date. Only a 2016 source that says it'll happen in 2018, but no further sources. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON Coderzombie (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge ~~per nom~~ - my WP:BEFORE check couldn't find anything in the last year on this particular competition, which doesn't bode well for it occuring this year. Soft deletion sounds reasonable, given a change in circumstances would make the refs and info worthwhile again. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be a reasonable judgement - its status of indecision probably give enough to let it be a paragraph. SAFF as suggested by Fenix down would make most sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Continuing delays mean it is not really notable on its own, but looks like it is starting this year. Sufficient sources in the article as is to warrant the brief content being merged with South Asian Football Federation for now and then a standalone article if the tournament takes place. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that says it will start this year is from 2016. I am a regular follower of Indian Football and I have never heard about it till now. So even my WP:TOOSOON argument was generous at best. I'd suggest delete or even draftify to a userpage, but wouldn't mind a redirect. Coderzombie (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I originally thought draftify, but it's been worked on by a reasonable number of different users so not sure draftifying is best bit. I was willing to consider merge as a paragraph on this tournament that has (seemingly) fizzled out would be worthwhile in its own right, even if it isn't actually going to occur. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article not similar to this proposed articel European Super League (association football) , merge into the SAFF page rather than just delete, there's sufficent references. Coderzombie, just because you have never heard of it, doesn't mean to say it's not a valid article. It may just show your not a regular follower as you thought you were? Interested to see suggestions for this article European Super League (association football) Druryfire (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to go by what I have or haven't heard. The fact is that all the sources mentioned say that this is something being proposed with no clarity on when exactly it'll start or if it'll start, that's why it's too soon. Coderzombie (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify without prejudice - appears to be WP:TOOSOON, and if the event doesn't take, it won't be notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2018 (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. A Train^talk 20:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Sud Ladies Cup

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

Non-notable sports competition. I cannot find any sufficient sources to justify GNG. Furthermore, these matches are not listed by FIFA. For ex. the Haiti team [23]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third-party coverage. Changing vote to merge with Toulon Tournament as suggested below. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I feel it's a bit early to nominator the article, I would give it another month or so to see if anything news worthy or helpful pops up closer to the event. I feel woman's football needs a chance. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toulon Tournament. Searching on L'Équipe, the french sport newspaper, yields no result, and the official web page is a subpage of the toulon tournament web site. Comte0 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a senior tournament, it's a U-20 Tournament. Hence why it's not listed on the senior team's matches. Smartyllama (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again you fail to even remotely check. The link also shows u-20 matches. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who has once again failed to do an ounce of WP:BEFORE. That link doesn't even show the U-20 qualifiers. It's obviously not intended to be a complete list of U-20 matches. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asserts in this edit [24] that a subject is not notable if it's not proven to be so in the first few hits of a google search. So, presumably, if the first few hits are primary sources, mirrors, blogs, etc, there is no need to search any further, we should just delete it. That's a fallacious argument even when the subject is in your language, but far more so when it's not. It's a terrible approach that guarantees disruption, WP:BIAS against non-English subjects, bias against less recent subjects, and all sorts of other negative impact to the encyclopedia. At least he saw fit to remove the personal attack, in his next edit.Jacona (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why waste your and other editors' time. If it's deleted, it'll be re-created in less than 30 days. Hmlarson (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - could well be notable, but difficult to see how it is notable now when the tournament hasn't even started. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Can be restored if/when that time comes. Giant Snowman 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userify It doesn't appear notable yet but it may be WP:TOOSOON as it kicks off in under a month. Not worth keeping yet, not worth a full delete. SportingFlyer talk 01:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any benefit to deleting an article like this right before the event happens. The article is short and informational, doesn't seem promotional, would be helpful to someone interested, and the event takes place in nine days. It doesn't seem in line with the spirit of Wikipedia to delete it now right when the information would be most helpful to people. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prin Goonchorn

(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 based on an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and nothing currently in the article meets WP:GNG. I do know user Paul_012 helped with a previous deletion that was saved (Yotsapon Teangdar) as they can read Thai, so if there is articles out there that would help it meet WP:GNG I would suggest they are added otherwise I stand by the delete. I note there maybe some articles by a simple google search but they are all in Thai [25]. NZFC^(talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first page of Google results include in-depth profiles by FourFourTwo, Goal.com, SuperSubThailand.com, and an evening news scoop from PPTV. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012, while that is good there appears to be more coverage of the player. This is English language wikipedia and none of us can read that information and can only go with what is on the article. Unless you want to add that information to the article its hard for us to say keep just because there is more information that we can't add out there. NZFC^(talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Footballs Conscience & GiantSnowman, I've rewritten the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tier 2 Soccer player in a Thai League is not notable even in their own country. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG, per the above given sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more discussion since article has been modified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A tough one to vote on as there are few English-language sources. A google search of his Thai name brings up several articles which we'd generally consider WP:MILL (signing for Thai Honda, U-23 articles) along with the other articles above. Language barrier aside, I'd like to see more sources to show WP:GNG (he fails WP:NFOOTY, though if his old team was professional he may have played in a cup match between two fully professional teams). That being said I can't discount the sources shown above, so I'm a neutral "vote"/simply commenting here. SportingFlyer talk 03:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People, the article has four sources in it. From what I read nobody has really discussed them, right? We can't just shrugg them (and possibly other sources) off because they are in Thai. That would be a horrible bias towards foreign language sources. Can we get someone here who knows the language before making decisions? wikitigresito (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitigresito See above, the sources where only added recently by Paul_012 who can speak Thai. So a lot of the votes where based before they added these new sources. The player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY but I'm not sure even with the new sources if it is enough to pass WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 02:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recently added sources. Thanks for explanation NZ Footballs Conscience. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul_012 sources. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I cannot, in good conscience, place blind faith on text in a non-English language, which I do not speak ~~written by a Wikipedia contributor who supports the article's inclusion~~. Even after examining the sources provided as much as I could and with the help of online translators, I find them to be profiles that are typically promoted by interested parties, e.g. agents. Nothing there to satisfy the aforesaid criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Google Translate is rubbish with Thai. I don't know, however, what you're referring to when you mention "text (in a non-English language) written by a Wikipedia contributor". Maybe you could clarify? --Paul_012 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You are a Wikipedia contributor and the articles were written in a non-English language. Didn't you state above that it was you who wrote those articles? Didn't I understand you correctly? -The Gnome (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had nothing to do with those Thai sources. What I said was that I rewrote the Prin Goonchorn Wikipedia page, which was previously a one-sentence stub, into an actual article. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up. I'm striking off the relevant portion of my comment, above. -The Gnome (talk)

Comment: In order to have our suggestions considered, they must be based on some rule or policy. We cannot just declare "I like it!" The criteria of fooballers' notability are indisputably not met by the article's subject. This player hasn't played in any Tier 1 International Match, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level (regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games), and he hasn't played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional, notable leagues. So, that's it for football. Nothing Wikinotable.

Now, about the much suffering general notability guideline. The key instructions are as follows (emphasis in the original): If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Underline the last bit: We are not supposed to have here indiscriminate listings of people, such as pro athletes, who do not meet their respective notability-criteria just because they have received lots of coverage in their local press! This is just not done; it's as far from the spirit of the guideline as possible. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the prose of The Gnome comment above. Kid hasn't not done anything worthy of note. Fails all SNG and I have never interpreted the GNG to mean create an art le for everyone who gets a few write ups in the paper. Particularly so for sports pages. ClubOranje^T 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure pass whether WP:GNG or not so I need more people comment. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2018 (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. Boy, this was a mess. Bulk nominations are rarely a good idea, as the ensuing muddled debate exemplifies. The general consensus of the discussion is that Viramontes meets the bar of the GNG, making the discussion about meeting NFOOTY moot. A Train^talk 09:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Viramontes

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.

In anticipation of potential keep votes below, quoting the nutshell section of NSPORT (namely: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition) is not a suitable deletion reationale. The nutshell is merely a summary synthesis of various guidelines (which should be obvious from the vagueness of words such as "major"). The only relevant area of NSPORT for this discussion is NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela Carrandi and WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more: WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep These articles are unrelated enough that nominating as a WP:MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Nominate them separately if you want. Smartyllama (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per [26], [27], and [28], the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the difference between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. Giant Snowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the NFOOTY authors didn't write those articles. To most people in everyday English, a league that has "some professional elements" but is not "fully-professional" is semi-professional, not professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). Giant Snowman 13:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes :) Giant Snowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of lower-tier professional athletes have part-time jobs on top of their full-time ones. Minor league baseball is commonly regarded as professional baseball (though its athletes are not inherently notable per WP:NBASEBALL) but its athletes often take other jobs in the offseason to make a living. And I seem to recall a discussion on that talk page reaching explicit consensus that MiLB is professional, not semi-professional or anything else. But this AfD is really not the appropriate place to have this discussion, WT:FOOTY is. I suggest we move it over there. Smartyllama (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do. Giant Snowman 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Liga MX Femenil. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none come even close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brenda Viramontes and Anette Vázquez, ~~unbundle the other nominations please~~ delete Zellyka Arce and Valeria Meza - It appears that Viramontes is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., Publimetro article, El Informador article, Non-routine mention in Vanguardia article - led club in goals during the 2017 Apertura tournament). There is plenty of routine coverage online as well, but I think there is enough online coverage to satisfy GNG based on my limited Google Translate skills. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: - why do the rest need to be unbundled? They remain non-notable, do they not? Re-nominating them serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 18:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to review online sources to see if any of the other articles meet the GNG. I don't think it's appropriate to bundle them in a single AfD (as GNG compliance for each article must be determined independently). Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them meet GNG, so what's the problem? Giant Snowman 20:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I checked for online coverage of Anette Vázquez, and it appears an article would satisfy the GNG (e.g., Publimetro article, ESPN MX article, and AS México article). I don't think Arce and Meza would satisfy the GNG based on a quick check of their online coverage, but I reserve the right to look further when I have more time. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my !vote to cover the other 3 articles - I'm not finding sufficient coverage for the Arce or Meza articles to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I detest multiple nominations unless there is clear connected reasoning to do so. Nominate seperately if there is deemed reasoning. I do see issues on more than one but not necessarily on all. Otr500 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: these are basic stub articles, all created by the same editor using the same template, about women who all play for the same soccer team (and all fail WP:NFOOTBALL). They are about as connected as you can get! Giant Snowman 11:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Most editors that are not involved in articles, and just weighing in on an AFD, unless really bored with nothing to do but research an AFD, would not know this so would have been a good reason to include this information in the nomination(s). There has been a slide for finding reasons to keep pseudo BLP's using speciality publications or other primary sources or just a head count over a !vote. The closer normally will not investigate the articles but weigh in on the rationale provided in these !votes, supposedly considering relevant policies and guidelines. I take the time to look at these, investigate to a minor extent, and !vote according to what I see as reliable sources. Trying to "slide 'em in" seems to be a popular thing because the below templates rational does not seem to matter. Consider instances of This page in a nutshell: Otr500 (talk)

WP:notability:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports):

This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Wikipedia:Notability (people):

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.
Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

All of these have the same thing in common in that sources determine notability as well as acceptable rationale for content yet somehow this tries to be wikilawyered. We then seperate reliable sources to exclude primary sources for notability and add depth if a BLP (or BLP related) is concerned. If a source is closely related to a subject (not independent of the subject) it cannot be used for notability. None of the above seem to matter when one or more editors, or a project, seem set on creating articles or making blue links out of all red links, that have been marked thus for article creation when the creation occurs, or speedy deletes would be more common. Expanding a parent article must not have the same prestige or possibly total article count so creating stubby stubs or pseudo BLPs seems preferencial to adding to an existing article to make it better. If a subject is not greatly sourced or even poorly sourced it might augment the parent article but it seems more fun (I guess) to argue stand-alone status.

If you close this as withdrawn and wish to nominate seperately you can ping me and I will give my honest opinion, according to policies and guidelines, as to notability on each or you can take your chances with the bundle. Otr500 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Either find sources showing notability or don't. Giant Snowman 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the smart aleck (I perceive = asswipe) comments. I was in favor of helping: Never mind do not ping me (ever) as I will return the asshole (my perception) favor by not reading your ping. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to AGF (as your user page proudly boasts!) and CIVIL? Giant Snowman 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. AGF is a two-way street not a convenient threat. Follow the rules. Hmlarson (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all apart from the problematic bulk nom, players that aren't independently notable can be redirected to their team. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Are they notable pr not? Also redirecting non-notable sports people to their team page is frowned upon due to transfers etc. and th redirect becoming repeatedly out-of-date/inaccurate. Giant Snowman 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see my points above)? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:NFOOTBALL completely falls flat for women's football. Fortunately for Viramontes, she pretty clearly passes WP:GNG with interviews with SI [29] and a full profile here [30] [31] which aren't WP:MILL. I haven't reviewed the others nominated, but recommend a procedural keep for them without prejudice for renomination. SportingFlyer talk 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a procedural keep of the others? Giant Snowman 08:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they should all be judged on their own merits - Viramontes is clearly notable, the others may be as well. Per the multi AfD, An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. SportingFlyer talk 20:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for Viramontes (Jogurney being entirely right in stating that NFOOTBALL's irrelevant if the subject can otherwise meet the GNG), neutral on the rest. Ravenswing 11:15, 25 May 2018 (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.