Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.D. Graneros Unido

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. Closing as the nominator's comment at the bottom appears to be a desire to withdraw the nomination, and I agree that the general concensus after two relistings appears to be keep anyway. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Graneros Unido[edit]

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

This amateur-level football club has little reliable sources. A simple search shows very little coverage of this club. There are no records of participation in professional football. It fails WP:GNG. MicroX (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following amateur-level Chilean football clubs.

They have similar issues as C.D. Graneros Unido. They have no reliable sources and have not reached a professional division. --MicroX (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination for the older clubs: C.D. Graneros Unido, Defensor Casablanca, and Lautaro de Buin. However, the remaining clubs were more recently founded and remain unsourced. --MicroX (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these teams are a century old. I can't believe that a team would be around that long, in a country as crazy about football as Chile, without having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage is likely to be in off-line sources, but here are some examples I found: [1][2][3]. Also note that, despite being amateur teams, Sky Bet and Paddy Powers seem to accept wagers on their matches. I feel that that's an indication of notability. Pburka (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Length of existence is not in WP:GNG. --MicroX (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said that the length of existence leads me to presume that they've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Then I identified some of those sources. That's in WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all the clubs are that old and most of the listed clubs lack sources and notability, especially the younger clubs that were founded in the 2000s that have yet to reach a professional division. --MicroX (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you'd like to remove the older clubs from this nomination I'm ok with that. I think the younger clubs are less likely to be notable. Pburka (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it might be better if the remaining clubs were listed individually, as they will have different characteristics. Here are a couple of links for Luis Matte Larrain, not sure if they can be said to be enough to confer notability [4] [5]. Eldumpo (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be better to de-bundle and re-list each club individually at AFD. Giant Snowman 11:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - These articles lack WP:POTENTIAL and fail specific notability guidelines where as they infer upon. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of these clubs have played at the fourth tier in Chile and I do believe that there is coverage out there (printed and in a language most of us don't understand) to satisfy WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: This should not be a batch deletion nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to be under the misconception that professionalism is a requirement or a contributory factor for notability of a football team. The special notability guideline for individual players depends on professional status, but not for teams. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - can this discussion be closed? It has been almost a month and the consensus is to keep them all instead of a batch deletion. --MicroX (talk) 22:26, 10 August 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.