Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC-OFC Reorganization Proposal

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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC-OFC Reorganization Proposal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.