Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catioo (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catioo

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

Technically ineligible for PROD as it was included in a bundled nom of non-notable football clubs nearly 10 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis.

I can't find any sources that would indicate this club even exists, let alone passes WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of sources Spiderone 16:35, 24 July 2017 (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.