Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollands Pies FC: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:25, 3 February 2010

Hollands Pies FC

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

Non-notable football club. Declined WP:PROD. Frank | talk 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unquestionably unnotable football club. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable six-a-side team. Move along, nothing to see here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arguably C7, nowhere in the article does it show any significance notability or importance.....because there is none to show.--ClubOranje^T 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why wasn't this a speedy delete? StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons, really: I couldn't find a policy that indicates a team needs to be professional to be notable (only athletes), and it looked like lots of effort had been put in. That doesn't mean it meets policy or is notable, but I've found that putting that much effort is either sincere or persistent. In either case, when the PROD was removed, it seemed AfD was the prudent course. Frank | talk 04:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, A7 would apply as a sporting team is an organisation ("organisation" does not mean legal entity and explicitly includes similarly informal groups such as bands) and playing in a social indoor league is not a credible claim to notability. But I don't question your decision to take this here; in my view it's the proper thing to do if there is any doubt in the nominator's mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 things, first we don't play indoor football, second, it is definately sincere and not just a wind up, far too much effort and time for that. --isitafox

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *:Two reasons, really: I couldn't find a policy that indicates a ''team'' needs to be professional to be notable (only athletes), and it looked like lots of effort had been put in. That doesn't mean it meets policy or is notable, but I've found that putting that much effort is either [[WP:AGF|sincere]] or persistent. In either case, when the PROD was removed, it seemed AfD was the prudent course. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 04:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 *::In my view, [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] would apply as a sporting team is an organisation ("organisation" does not mean legal entity and explicitly includes similarly informal groups such as bands) and playing in a social indoor league is not a credible claim to notability. But I don't question your decision to take this here; in my view it's the proper thing to do if there is any doubt in the nominator's mind. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
+things, first we don't play indoor football, second, it is definately sincere and not just a wind up, far too much effort and time for that. --[[User:isitafox|isitafox]]