Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guttæne FC (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 03:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Guttæne FC
Ok, let's put this clear. This article survived a first nomination some months ago. The club was said to be notable because it was "probably the worst team in Norway" (finishing last in the 9th tier of Norwegian football the 2005 season). No chance in hell that is a reason for notability. There is a new "worst club in Norway" each year (actually a lot of them every year since there is several "lowest divisions" spread over the country, and there have been loads of them over the decades. Being "probably the worst" in something is not notable (in 99% of the cases, including this) and thus this should be deleted. – Elisson • Talk 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I totally agree with Johan Elisson. --Angelo 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator the first time. Punkmorten 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Finishing first in the 8th division wouldn't be any better in the notability department. B.Wind 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A club within the league structure of any national league system is notable. --Pkchan 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- For what reason? – Elisson • Talk 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I take a wide view of notability for football clubs and players. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper and as such should not be restricted by the volume of its collection: if a topic is real and genuine, meets the requirements of Verifiability and is in general well written, I do not see any reason for us to delete it, or even to draw a line as to which topics falls within the boundary and which topics do not, simply because such boundary needs not exist at the first place. Also remember that WP:NOT is an official policy while WP:N is only an essay. --Pkchan 16:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- But also remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As Eivind says below, by going with your view, the only thing needed for an entry in Wikipedia is 11 people and 11 shirts of the same colour. Then any store or coffee shop or restaurant or school or almost anything is more notable because it takes much more work to create something like that, and a random coffee shop in for example Gothenburg would be much more notable to the general Gothenburger than an 8th division team... A collection of such info is not what I want Wikipedia to be. – Elisson • Talk 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- My reading of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is that Wikipedia is not for a senseless dump of information which does not add to knowledge -- eg how-tos, telephone directories, quotations, that sort of thing. Here, however, we are talking about a football club in existence, which has history (participation in a known league) and achievements (well, perhaps not the most glorious one in this case). It adds to our knowledge of the lower level of club football in Norway. Indeed, most football clubs do.
- As for the coffee shop in Gothenburg: indeed, I do not mind its inclusion here as long as it is written in an encyclopedic manner and offer more knowledge than the senseless dump of information. --Pkchan 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- But also remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As Eivind says below, by going with your view, the only thing needed for an entry in Wikipedia is 11 people and 11 shirts of the same colour. Then any store or coffee shop or restaurant or school or almost anything is more notable because it takes much more work to create something like that, and a random coffee shop in for example Gothenburg would be much more notable to the general Gothenburger than an 8th division team... A collection of such info is not what I want Wikipedia to be. – Elisson • Talk 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I take a wide view of notability for football clubs and players. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper and as such should not be restricted by the volume of its collection: if a topic is real and genuine, meets the requirements of Verifiability and is in general well written, I do not see any reason for us to delete it, or even to draw a line as to which topics falls within the boundary and which topics do not, simply because such boundary needs not exist at the first place. Also remember that WP:NOT is an official policy while WP:N is only an essay. --Pkchan 16:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- For what reason? – Elisson • Talk 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest possible Delete To qualify for one of the many regional Norwegian 8th divisions, all you need is 11 people (preferibly male, aged 16 to 40) and eleven shirts of the same colour. These guys are five divisions below non-notable. --Eivindt@c 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest delete The worst team in Norway doesn't play in any competition probably, and would be unencyclopedic anyway.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest delete agree with Johan Elisson--Givern 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a well written article. Its harmless and quite funny; I think we should keep it for sure. Minfo 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
