Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voorschoten '97

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. J04n(talk page) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voorschoten '97[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football club playing only in the second highest amateur league. Travelbird (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable club. This version as well as the Dutch version are poorly sourced (just 1 primary source). Jarkeld (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this club. Having a single former player who now plays professional does not incur notability (wp:INHERITED). ~~I also removed the history section again, for it is a direct translation from the official website and thus a copyright violation.~~ Yoenit (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Put the history section back in full. It is not a direct translation, I translated it myself. Vbruin (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A translation is a derivative work, so it remains a copyright violation. Rewrite the text in your own words if you want to use it. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will then. Vbruin (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm editing the History section to have a more neutral view point and editing out the less important points. Vbruin (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great! unfortunately that does not adress the reason why the page was nominated for deletion: It does not appear to meet our guideline for inclusion, the general notability guideline. Yoenit (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays in the Hoofdklasse A, and is therefore eligible for the KNVB Cup - therefore meeting notability guidelines for clubs as determined by WP:FOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Club plays at the fourth level of football in the Netherlands. Hardly a pub team. Number 5 7 09:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. - Berton (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. Their participation in the KNVB Cup is confirmed by a quick Gsearch. Bettia Talk 12:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ So can that notice be removed yet? Vbruin (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 days from the start of the AfD. I struck out your second keep. Just 1 per customer. Jarkeld (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2011 (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.