Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Rossanese 1909 A.S.D.

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

The result was merge to Rossanese A.S.D.. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Rossanese 1909 A.S.D.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

One source, no claims of notability, thereby failing WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rossanese_A.S.D. as there appear to be two articles covering the same club, which a very quick Google search shows is notable (articles like [1] [2] or a list of articles here: [3]. Note there's not much to be merged, so my vote is functionally a delete and redirect. SportingFlyer talk 06:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:REDUNDANTFORK suggests "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article", which would lead to Rossanese_A.S.D. being merged into F.C. Rossanese 1909 A.S.D., so a delete and redirect would be inappropriate. The history of this earlier article should remain. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's if it's "unjustified" - the two articles date from 2006 and 2009 and the 2009 article is more updated, detailed, and appears to use the club's correct name. I see no reason to not delete the current article, then create a redirect to the other article in this case. SportingFlyer talk 04:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Giant Snowman 14:18, 13 September 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.