Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 delete. There is a clear consensus in my opinion, but I'll be happy to provide a rationale if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC de Rakt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
FC de Rakt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Relisting per consensus to overturn and relist at deletion review. Neutral on my part. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet the minimum requirements of substantial, independent, coverage as laid out at Wikipedia:Notability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage has been both substantial and independent. For example, it appeared on Dutch national TV Hart van Nederland, and here's a report from the Reuters website Reuters, and one from NTDTV in Asia NTDTV. These reports are substantial and independent. Here's another one from The Observer Football: Said and Done, The Observer (London); Sep 21, 2008; David Hills, and as an example of the extensive web coverage see Little Miss Soccer. Web coverage exists in English, Dutch, Swedish, Turkish and Japanese - at the very least. "FC de Rakt" gets approximately 6200 Google hits. ðarkuncoll 07:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I understand it, TharkunColl has a philia for adding what may seem obscure contributions to Wikipedia, but they are actually ordinary contributions, given one's location. Refusing such things, is like deciding to avoid mention of places in the "Empty Quarter of the US", which would defeat the purpose of encyclopedias, in that cataloging and filing simple things may be made into a mountain of a dispute here at Wikipedia, rather than the molehill they really are, but who says the molehill is any less interesting than the usual contentious articles? I at least thought the article to be interesting, even though the whole of Holland is more or less off of my personal radar. So local Dutch football seems non-notable for those who petition for its removal from Wikipedia. I suggest a solution. Read WP:BIAS and drop this. TharkunColl has added some other stuff here of an unrelated nature (e.g. Mercia), that certainly wouldn't get much press in many places, but has intrigued me. I never knew of an explicitly "Mercian" consciousness except in theory, because people usually focus either on Wessex revivalism, or differences between Thames and Humber English subcultures. It is due to TharkunColl's steadily legitimate efforts and sources. Imagine, perhaps, how "flyover country" feels to be casually dismissed. Do the opponents of this article get a joyride out of "denying notability", as if they had the Petrine keys in Rome to bind or loosen as vicars of Christ? Who are they to raise objections and bash? There's not much else to say. Catterick (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the team receives coverage only for the way they dress. You can make a mention to it in a different article about clothing in women's football, but making the article about the club itself makes no sense. --Angelo (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be covered in the media for only for a single event without ongoing coverage. Yes, they are still wearing the altered kit, but the news cycle has moved on. WP:NOT#NEWS --Clay Collier (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The above stements are incorrect. Doing an advanced Google search for "FC de Rakt", but excluding all pages that mention the word "skirts" gives a total of 5890 hits - only 200 less than the total mentioned above. If similar a search is conducted excluding the word "rokje" (Dutch for "skirts") a total of 5590 hits is obtained. So, since almost all pages that discuss the club are in either Dutch or English, at the very most, only some 600 mention the skirts issue, out of more than 6000 that mention the club - a mere tenth. ðarkuncoll 10:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I poked around a little bit with Google, trying various exclusions and inclusions. I found that even when I attempted to search only for English-language articles, I got foreign language pages (mostly in Vietnamese, but a few others as well) that were just linking to the 'people wearing skirts' videos seen in other spots. The remaining pages that showed up in the results page were mostly links to YouTube videos, and a few local box scores. I lack the ability to assess the Dutch articles, but I do recall WP:N saying that routine coverage of local sporting events isn't sufficient to establish notability. From the pages that I can read (and even from many I can not, which are linking to the same videos), it appears that the Google results for this topic are generally 1) trivial mentions, such as a YouTube link to a random video possible including footage of the team or a match fixtures schedule, 2) links to the videos showing the players wearing skirts, sometimes in foreign languages that are not removed by excluding the Dutch and English words for skirt, or 3) links that have nothing to do with the topic, but have had 'FC de Rakt' added into their search terms at some point in the past because they used to host the videos in question. So regardless of the quantity of hits (which ranges from 6000 to as low as 300-odd, depending on the search terms used to exclude the skirt videos, the quality of the material is quite poor. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails W:N in such that the sources do not address the subject directly in detail. Also fails WP:NTEMP in that It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. And finally fails WP:NOT Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event . The ghits mentioned by the creator of this article are blogs a Dutch version of bebo and youtube hardly reliable sources. BigDuncTalk 11:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even ignoring the skirt issue, this club deserves an article. According to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, a member of a class of things should have an article if other members of that class have one. FC de Rakt - both the men's and women's teams - plays at level 9 of Dutch football. There are literally hundreds of articles about clubs that play at level 9, 10, and even lower of English football. I haven't got time to list them all now, but I will if it proves to be necessary. I can only assume, therefore, that those who advocate deletion regard English football as somehow more deserving of coverage than, say, Dutch football. And just in case anyone tries to argue that there aren't Wikipedia articles on Dutch clubs at that level - well that's no argument at all (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). All it means is that those articles haven't been created yet. ðarkuncoll 12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! That is a fantastic misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If you actually read that page, it is clear that the existance of something superficially in common with another article at Wikipedia is no basis for including this article in the encyclopedia as well. Please make arguements on the merits of this article, NOT merely because of the existance of other articles, which may or may not need to be deleted, based of course entirely on the merits of what is in those articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has sufficient independent coverage and sources and satisfies notability guidelines. — Jake Wartenberg 14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability for a football team is in playing football. DGG (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a football team can't be notable for any other reason? ðarkuncoll 08:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please see my first comment on this page. Or don't you regard Reuters, say, as reliable? Or Dutch TV? Or The Observer? Etc. etc. etc. ðarkuncoll 08:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. The coverage all comes back to one or two articles which are novelty space-fillers. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets all guidelines. WP:N has plenty of sources, and I'm not seeing how a "new kit" that got the team so much press violates NOT#NEWS. if consenous is that it does, move article to cover the event per NOTNEWS rather than delete. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is not significant, nor is it substantial enough to meet notability requirements. As BigDunc points out above, the sourcing is deficient in terms of depth and reliability. As a sports team, they do not meet Wikipedia:Athlete. DGG puts it quite succinctly above. They have evidently not achieved at a top level of performance and are not notable. Wikipedia is not the news, and we need not repeat every unique, amusing or interesting utterance of the news agencies. A few blurbs on national news services do not make for notability. Dlohcierekim 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to below. 6 whole news articles repeating what is already known about the subject and dismissed as a flash in the pan because of their clothing. I need not reiterate points I have already made and which have been made better By DGG and BigDunc and Sjakkalle. Wikipedia is not the news. Dlohcierekim 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few blurbs? Did you actually look at the breadth of coverage here? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], all of which are significant and substantial coverage by any definition commonly used here. Can someone clarify which part of:
News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
Is failed? This isn't routine news coverage of sports, nor is it coverage of an WP:BLP individual or a FAQ. Lots of people are waving NOTNEWS around, but I'd like some clarification about how this article is in violation of the actual policy. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's almost certainly a case of WP:BIAS. Bias against a club because it's Dutch rather than English (hundreds of articles about English clubs at equivalent or lower level exist), and bias against the women's team because - well - it's the women's team. And the stupid thing is, I don't think they even realise their bias. ðarkuncoll 08:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I feel just the opposite. I feel like this is a non-notable team whose profile was very briefly raised because it was 'women in skirts'. If a comparably-positioned team of male Norwegian footballers had found a loophole that allowed them to wear long trousers on the pitch, we'd never have heard a thing about it. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's precisely the point. We did hear about the skirts, therefore it's notable. You're still thinking in terms of notability as a football club, but WP:N overrides that. ðarkuncoll 11:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's where I think NOT#News comes in. The press briefly tossed up a couple puff pieces about the change of uniform; I don't see Reuters or any of the other major international press outlets taking an ongoing interest in this team, or the uniform issue. Just because we hear about something in the new does not automatically make it notable; the standard is for 'significant coverage' to pass notability in general, and "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." I see no difference between the coverage of the team's uniforms and the other flavor of the week human interest stories about lost dogs and toast shaped like Jesus that are used to fill flat moments in the news cycle for a day or so, and are then forgotten. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with DGG. Maybe there are a few exceptions, but sports teams are notable for sporting merits, and this team is too far down in the league system to have that. The main claim to notability is the slight controversy over their outfit, but it's a news story which piques some interest in the sports tabloids due to the words "women", "football" and "miniskirts". For an event to be encyclopedic, it needs to show a bit of lasting impact, or a considerable debate. I cannot see any evidence that this has sparked off anything major, or has set a trend in any way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that what you've just said is actually quite sexist? The women themselves requested this change. ðarkuncoll 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a mens' team at the equivalent level decided to start playing football with top hats, I would vote to delete that as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The organisation has become a permanent entity, since 1968. It should be included as completing the set of soccer clubs in the Netherlands. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is permanent is not being questioned, notability is. In this case this club doesn't meet the standards for football clubs - none of the teams play at high enough a level. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet notability standards. The special clothing may warrant a mention in the Kit article but doesn't confer notability to the club. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a football club. The skirts issue can go in an article on kit. Anything else belongs on wikinews not here. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only in media for a clothing gimmick. None of the sources cover the club itself in any detail - none even appear to mention which league/division the club play in. Cover the skirts issue in a single line on the football kit article if you must. - fchd (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those who wish to delete this article. If I placed an AfD notice on each of the hundreds and hundreds of articles about English clubs that play at level 9 and below - and have never had international coverage about anything - would you support their deletion? ðarkuncoll 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coverage doesn't have to be international, merely siginificant. I'd agree with you that there are possibly hundreds of lower-level English clubs that this accusation could be targeted at, and therefore you would have my support if you nominate one or more articles under that criterion. Please bear in mind though that there is quite a lot of coverage about low level football in England about, there is a national newspaper dedicated to it (until recently there were two), plus coverage in more local media and on local radio/TV. However, that is not really the point here. - fchd (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, maybe, maybe not, it would depend on the case. In any case see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's context here as a part of Arguements to Avoid. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other_stuff_exists#Creation_of_articles in fact supports the creation of this article - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." The example it then gives are Star Trek episodes, saying that even Enterprise episodes deserve an article, since Star Trek ones have them. It's ironic that some have tried to use "Other stuff exists" as an argument against this article. If there were only one or two clubs at level 9 with articles then "Other stuff exists" would indeed be a valid argument against this one, but if you look at English football league system and scroll down to level 9 and below, then follow the links to all the leagues at those levels, you will find listed literally hundreds and hundreds of clubs. "Other stuff exists" therefore supports the creation of this article. The only argument I can think of that would exclude it is that all those clubs are English, whereas this one is Dutch. But of course, that would fall foul of WP:BIAS, and I don't think anyone would seriously consider arguing thus. So, BigDunc - since it was you who slapped the AfD notice on this one in the first place - would you care to place one on all those hundreds of English clubs? If not, can you please explain why? ðarkuncoll 10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit spurious to say that, because level 9 clubs in England have articles, then level 9 clubs in all other countries get a free pass onto WP. Comparing league at the same "level" in different countries is like comparing apples and oranges. Clubs at level 9 in England have proper stadiums with permanent stands, charge admission to get in, and get to compete in the national cup. There are also anything up to 12 or 15 levels of amateur competition below level 9. The impression that I get of level 9 football in the Netherlands (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's the lowest level of amateur competition in the country and the matches take place in parks. So not really a valid diret comparison..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then your impression is wrong. Please follow the link to the FC de Rakt website at the bottom of the article and you will see nice piccies of their homeground. Perhaps such ignorance is another reason why this article is important, yes? Also, please have a look at WP:BIAS. Also see [7] for full details of FC de Rakt in the league. And oh yes, they can compete for the national cup. ðarkuncoll 11:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would lean towards a weak keep, but think that it's really important that the article be reworked to give a more balanced overview of the club as a whole and not just talk about the women's team and those %&*%&*%@@$ skirts :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm more than happy with reworking the article - and indeed, would welcome any input or suggestions. ðarkuncoll 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment "oh yes, they can compete for the national cup." Oh no, they can't. At least not according to KNVB Cup which says that qualification is open to, at best, the fourth tier. The KNVB website appears to agree. In England, FA Cup entry extends as far as the 11th tier. These delete votes have nothing to do with bias; there are any number of ways that the English league system differs from the Dutch league system. UEFA would suggest that clubs from the Dutch league are better compared to Scottish or Portuguese league clubs. There are 2 professional leagues in the Netherlands compared to 4 fully professional with 2 semi-professional tiers below in England. Before this season there was, according to this site, no promotion or relegation between Hoofdklasse and Eerste Divisie; in England relegation and promotion is guaranteed down to the eighth tier (provided some very basic criteria are met) etc etc. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note: I live in the Netherlands, and I know for sure there is no significant following for clubs below the main two tiers, with a few notable exceptions in Hoofdklasse and (even fewer) Eerste Klasse (3rd and 4th level, both amateur). Ninth tier is merely a very low tier, there is an equivalent one in Italy, and is the second-bottom one (Seconda Categoria)! --Angelo (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - their 'fame' is for one thing only, and I don't feel it is enough for them to merit an article of their own. GiantSnowman 13:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dutch Wikipedia has a red link to FC de Rakt, indicating that they have no objection to its inclusion (see [8] - notice also that some of the links, to equivalent clubs, are already blue). If they had an article, then there's no reason why we shouldn't, is there? Anyway, regardless of that, my Dutch isn't good enough to translate the English article into Dutch, but if anyone wants to, and add it to the Dutch Wikipedia, please feel free. ðarkuncoll 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd see that the other way, if no one on the Dutch Wikipedia has found a Dutch notable enough to bother writing an article about, that indicates their notability is very low. - fchd (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All it means is that no one with sufficient knowledge or interest has written it yet (see WP:Other stuff exists). ðarkuncoll 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really understand "Other stuff exists" do you? That's twice in this very debate! - fchd (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Other stuff exists: "Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." ðarkuncoll 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else interesting - and a proposal. Our very own Wikipedia has a red link to the settlement of Rakt - List of cities, towns and villages in North Brabant, L-R (a suburb of Uden), the location of the Moleneind (literally "Mill End"), FC de Rakt's homeground. Just about the only other thing in Rakt is the windmill from which the ground takes its name - [9], around which FC de Rakt organise an annual football festival [10]. So - here's my proposal. Should the consensus go against keeping this article, how about turning it into a redirect to Rakt, and working the article up into an article about the village? I think it's fair to say that the football team is by far the most famous thing in it - certainly since last September, anyway... ðarkuncoll 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is essentially a WP:NOTNEWS issue. The club themselves are not notable - not by the general notability standard, and not by the de facto standard of comparing them to other Dutch football clubs (we don't have any articles about other clubs on the same level). They only briefly attracted news attention for wearing skirts, but it seems that was a matter of passing mentions and they haven't received any significant coverage before or since. As such, this is basically an article about a news story with no long-term significance, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems to have achieved appropriate coverage from a wide variety of sources. matt91486 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it the first football team to wear skirts?--Taranet (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HMMMMM Dlohcierekim 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources, yes. It had previously been assumed that skirts were not permitted under the international rules of the game. ðarkuncoll 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment having "clashed" with both TharkunColl & BigDunc recently, this article came up on my radar. My initial view was that it would be a horrible pity if the information was lost (And I believe Wikipedia is the most reliable way of stopping that from happening). With Rakt now an article I am inclined to declare merge, but, I cannot help but feel that, publicity stunt are not, the fact that they are so appallingly bad, is verging on being notable in its own right. Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Losing all its matches doesn't by itself make a team notable, dozens of teams in amateur/parks/kids football must achieve this awesome "feat" every year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think an article covering all such teams would be notable; maybe with a separate article for those that have done it wearing skirts? Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Damn! I was hoping no one had noticed that they had lost every single match and have a very good claim to be the worst team in Dutch football. At least there's no danger of relegation though. ðarkuncoll 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Worst team in the country" is a rather meaningless term, because teams at the bottom of the league system play in separate divisions by region. From Football in the Netherlands it seems that the lower leagues are divided into West 1, West 2, South 1, South 2, North and East, so I think there are about six teams who finish in last place in the league system for any given season. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I haven't checked, but have all the other bottom of league teams lost every single match this season? ðarkuncoll 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Who cares? Whether the article is kept or deleted is not going to hinge on whether or not the team has the worst record in Dutch football..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear one event article for a club which fails to meet the notability guidelines on WP:FOOTBALL. While there are considerations of systematic bias, level nine in the Netherlands is way below level nine in England. Valenciano (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No ongoing coverage in reliable secondary sources so I think the skirt thing should be classed under WP:NOT#NEWS. As this is the only thing that the club could be deemed notable for, I think the article should be deleted. (Incidentally I don't think there is a problem with mentioning the event on the Rakt page). Quantpole (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FC_de_Rakt_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137839801"