Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Abasin Sape F.C.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus to delete or merge at this time. If editors still think there are notability issues in a few months' time then they can be renominated. If WP:FOOTYN was a Wikipedia-wide guideline, I would have probably closed this AfD as "keep", as the teams all seem to pass it; participants in the Football WikiProject might want to have a discussion about whether the wording of the guideline is appropriate or not. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De Abasin Sape F.C.[edit]
- De Abasin Sape F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
Also nominating the other following pages for deletion:
- Shaheen Asmayee F.C.
- Toofaan Harirod F.C.
- Simorgh Alborz F.C.
- Oqaban Hindukush F.C.
- Mawjhai Amu F.C.
- De Maiwand Atalan F.C.
- De Spin Ghar Bazan F.C.
Clubs that play in the 2012 Afghan Premier League which is a first year league for Afghanistan which is only 1 month long and all these clubs easily fail GNG. The club articles should not be made yet, we should wait for the league to develop, gets longer, and gathers enough media attention within clubs before making 8 super stubs. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 1. Snotbot t • c » 14:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Afghan Premier League - little information can be found about these clubs and they do not deserve seperate articles in their current states. GiantSnowman 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Afghan Premier League per GiantSnowman – no indication of notability yet, but they are all very probable search terms. – Kosm1fent 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Afghan Premier League - WP:TOOSOON, considering that the clubs were only recently founded and thus unlikely to gain notability. Using Google News, I searched all of the teams listed and found nothing. However, with De Maiwand Atalan F.C., I found a brief mention at a BBC News article here. It is likely that additional sources may not be English and possibly Pashto and Dari, but I doubt it because there would be little to talk about aside from that the club was recently founded and probably future games. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (possibly Incubate) - yes, the league has only just started but the launch of the league got plenty of press coverage like this, this, this and this (Spanish). Most of those give "coverage" to a couple of the teams, based on which played in the first games that "launched" the new league. They might not meet WP:GNG now (or WP:ORGDEPTH as it may) but surely it can't be long. First-division teams in major leagues (especially new ones in countries where there is plenty of "Western" media coverage, generally, because of other matters) are not likely to fail WP:GNG for long. Is there any point deleting them (or even redirecting them) if we're only going to be recreating them in a matter of months (or even weeks or days). I would understand individual players, sure, but the teams themselves? Even without international press coverage (which will obviously slow down) the teams themselves are likely to get local sports-media coverage when they start playing regular weekly games (week 2 is on now, yeah?). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further - just had a quick go at fixing the De Abasin Sape F.C. article. The refs, at present, are not great but there's more than enough, I think, to create a stub while the season pans out and each team is covered in more detail. If there's a strong consensus to delete I won't fight it, but I just can't see the value in deleting them. Conversely, if someone wants to have a go at fixing each of them, let me know - I'll help. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After more looking - the teams are already starting to get local coverage like this and this - week-by-week coverage of De Abasin Sape games against other teams. And the same is there for each team. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would still like to say that this is still only a month long competition. I know where your coming from but common sense would say that these clubs are not ready yet. Until more club specific profiles comes out or club websites with history etc in it then I dont see how these clubs are notable yet. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, fair enough, just can't see the logic in deleting something as WP:TOOSOON when the week-by-week coverage of each team will likely mean they all pass WP:GNG within a matter of weeks, if not sooner. I would suggest some of them (especially those involved in the first games, for which there was extensive international media coverage) probably pass WP:GNG already. I understand the want to delete things that aren't yet notable but I reckon there's a chance some of these will meet WP:GNG by the time this 7-day AFD has run its course. We're not talking about a youtube "star" who may or may not receive future coverage, or even a young soccer player who might or might not one day play for a top-level club. We're talking about national-level sporting clubs that (collectively) have already been the subject of significant coverage and will individually (surely) be the subject of ongoing national, if not international, coverage. They created a nationally-broadcast reality TV show to find players for each team! If nothing else, we could almost assume the teams each received sufficient mention during the course of that show to substantiate "significant coverage". Besides which, while club websites might be useful to us in building the articles, they wouldn't have an impact on WP:GNG as they wouldn't be considered independent of the subject. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If I put these clubs to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST I get this result:
- 1. Has the clubs played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO
- 2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? YES
- Final question
- Do the completed articles generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? NO
- Yeah, fair enough, just can't see the logic in deleting something as WP:TOOSOON when the week-by-week coverage of each team will likely mean they all pass WP:GNG within a matter of weeks, if not sooner. I would suggest some of them (especially those involved in the first games, for which there was extensive international media coverage) probably pass WP:GNG already. I understand the want to delete things that aren't yet notable but I reckon there's a chance some of these will meet WP:GNG by the time this 7-day AFD has run its course. We're not talking about a youtube "star" who may or may not receive future coverage, or even a young soccer player who might or might not one day play for a top-level club. We're talking about national-level sporting clubs that (collectively) have already been the subject of significant coverage and will individually (surely) be the subject of ongoing national, if not international, coverage. They created a nationally-broadcast reality TV show to find players for each team! If nothing else, we could almost assume the teams each received sufficient mention during the course of that show to substantiate "significant coverage". Besides which, while club websites might be useful to us in building the articles, they wouldn't have an impact on WP:GNG as they wouldn't be considered independent of the subject. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would still like to say that this is still only a month long competition. I know where your coming from but common sense would say that these clubs are not ready yet. Until more club specific profiles comes out or club websites with history etc in it then I dont see how these clubs are notable yet. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After more looking - the teams are already starting to get local coverage like this and this - week-by-week coverage of De Abasin Sape games against other teams. And the same is there for each team. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further - just had a quick go at fixing the De Abasin Sape F.C. article. The refs, at present, are not great but there's more than enough, I think, to create a stub while the season pans out and each team is covered in more detail. If there's a strong consensus to delete I won't fight it, but I just can't see the value in deleting them. Conversely, if someone wants to have a go at fixing each of them, let me know - I'll help. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's ask some further questions:
- Should we be looking to delete the articles? POSSIBLY
- Have we given enough time for preparation of reasonable articles? NO
- Is more material likely to be generated in good quality media sources in the coming weeks? YES
- From my brief observations I am coming up with useful material using Google tools. I am also intrigued comparing the the number of Ghits I am getting when I make a comparison with the local language terms:
- Sources for Shaheen Asmayee:
- I urge that more time is allowed for the preparation of reasonable articles - say until the end of the Roshan Afghan Premier League season. We can then properly assess them. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Okay then, if we can then lets wait it out because honestly I feel that once the Roshan Premier League finishes then the coverage will stop. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the case, but if by then the teams have received "significant coverage" then the whole thing becomes a moot argument because notability is not temporary. Once they pass WP:GNG they are notable - they don't then become not-notable once ongoing coverage stops. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, if we can then lets wait it out because honestly I feel that once the Roshan Premier League finishes then the coverage will stop. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge that more time is allowed for the preparation of reasonable articles - say until the end of the Roshan Afghan Premier League season. We can then properly assess them. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Hey Wikipedians, After reading all your discussions and comments on whether to Keep the created articles of the teams or to merge or to delete, I would strongly oppose those who is in favor of deletion. What is the problem in the article, Is it because of being a new team which is hardly having two months of past or not having sufficient reference. All of you who thinks so just go to Google and type name of each team then you will get thousands of reference from Google. On the other hand let me tell you that Afghan Premier League is airing live of Tolo Tv and Lemar Tv of Afghanistan as well as Youtube provide live matches. Click here to watch past matches and current ongoing live matches http://www.youtube.com/user/afghanpremierleague. --Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a Strong keep even: these articles are about clubs playing in the 2012 Afghan Premier League, it's not like they haven't started playing yet. Yes, the articles will probably be stub for a while, but does it matter? I don't think there is a very large chance for finding online sources to make the article pass WP:GNG, but all of these articles passes the WP:FOOTYN: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. and we should assume that there are enough coverage in offline sources to make these articles pass WP:GNG. Might be too soon to create the articles, but I would also say that it too soon to delete the articles. --Mentoz86 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that we are trying to encourage an improvement in standards so that new articles get somewhere near meeting WP:GNG - see the recent debate Club articles that meet WP:FOOTYN but fail WP:GNG. For 7 of these articles no attempt at all has been made to meet WP:GNG. Why not? It is not as if there are no relevant sources. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- While it might be true that the articles haven't been well-developed, that's something that falls squarely into WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. If a subject notionally meets WP:GNG but that's not verified in the article, it may well be that the person who created the article hasn't lived up to their end of WP:BURDEN and we should either encourage them to do so or help by contributing to the article to make it better (as I tried to do to De Abasin Sape F.C. as a demonstration of what could be done). See both WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 8 articles (now 7 following additional work De Abasin Sape) make a mockery of WP:GNG. They represent "duplicate content" and were uploaded over a 23 minute period on 29 September 2012. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Your analysis is probably not far from the mark. But where something has been added, does not meet guidelines but could be considered to meet them, we are generally called on to assume good faith (in the sense that we should assume the person who added the content was trying to add meaningful content) and to fix the problem where we can. But it would also be naive to think all things can be fixed. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 8 articles (now 7 following additional work De Abasin Sape) make a mockery of WP:GNG. They represent "duplicate content" and were uploaded over a 23 minute period on 29 September 2012. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- While it might be true that the articles haven't been well-developed, that's something that falls squarely into WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. If a subject notionally meets WP:GNG but that's not verified in the article, it may well be that the person who created the article hasn't lived up to their end of WP:BURDEN and we should either encourage them to do so or help by contributing to the article to make it better (as I tried to do to De Abasin Sape F.C. as a demonstration of what could be done). See both WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that we are trying to encourage an improvement in standards so that new articles get somewhere near meeting WP:GNG - see the recent debate Club articles that meet WP:FOOTYN but fail WP:GNG. For 7 of these articles no attempt at all has been made to meet WP:GNG. Why not? It is not as if there are no relevant sources. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Nominators Comment: I am willing to drop the nomination for De Abasin Sape F.C. for deletion. The page has enough to pass for now. Hopefully more can be added soon. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have missed my point - I tried to fix that particular one to demonstrate that they could all be fixed in the same way and to make the point that I would be willing to put the same amount of work into the others if there was a community consensus that they should be kept. I didn't want to spend time trying to fix each one if they were just going to be deleted anyway. I wasn't trying to save that one in particular. If the consensus is that they should be deleted then they should all be deleted. Otherwise we'll just end up with futile WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments as a result. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood exactly what you said. The reason I nominated for deletion because there was nothing on the pages but now on this one there is. Now at this moment if no one is around to fix them then let it be. That one article will survive and the others will get merged till someone decides to recreate and add more to the article (I would hope the original creator would do that). Anyway if these articles are still around by say Wednesday then I will jump in and individually help and I now know that there is a way to prove them to pass for now. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood - no worries at all mate! I'll try to help out. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I understood exactly what you said. The reason I nominated for deletion because there was nothing on the pages but now on this one there is. Now at this moment if no one is around to fix them then let it be. That one article will survive and the others will get merged till someone decides to recreate and add more to the article (I would hope the original creator would do that). Anyway if these articles are still around by say Wednesday then I will jump in and individually help and I now know that there is a way to prove them to pass for now. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have missed my point - I tried to fix that particular one to demonstrate that they could all be fixed in the same way and to make the point that I would be willing to put the same amount of work into the others if there was a community consensus that they should be kept. I didn't want to spend time trying to fix each one if they were just going to be deleted anyway. I wasn't trying to save that one in particular. If the consensus is that they should be deleted then they should all be deleted. Otherwise we'll just end up with futile WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments as a result. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (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.