Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banklacticos

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banklacticos

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable football (soccer) team that plays in a park in London. Does not participate in top ten levels of the National League System, which general consensus on what makes a team notable (see previous discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football). Previously nommed for speedy but anon IP (presumably originator) objected. Qwghlm 13:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. (BTW, I think you should have left the CSD notice up.) Mr Stephen 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article says "we do not know the names of the players themselves, as they prefer to keep a low profile, but we do know that they all work in the city at an unknown bank", which implies that this article is unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. I can get (some of) their names and their workplace tonight or next week as our team plays nearby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs)
  • (repeat)Don't Delete. I've heard of them and I don't even like soccer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Two things, 217. One, this isn't a vote, so saying don't delete twice won't help your cause. Two, how can you dislike soccer and still know about these teams? Picaroon9288|ta co 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the page should be deleted or not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.123.118 (talk • contribs) 10:14, August 5, 2006 (UTC).
  • You only have to look at the article title to see it is relevant. I have restored my comment - please do not censor other users' contributions to talk pages, it is considered unacceptable behaviour. Qwghlm 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they all turn out to be celebrities. Just adding their names won't make the team worthy of an article on here ChrisTheDude 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless the majority of the team are famous... Marcus22 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. NawlinWiki 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I created the article with the help of a couple of people who organise the events at Regent's Park. We can assert that this team have blown most of the Thursday teams away, and according to their registration a number of the players play in Saturday leagues. We don't know which divisions they play for, but comparing them to usual Regent's standards, they're very good indeed. We can find out names etc and provide them to the article (if they give us permission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catisfit (talk • contribs) (article creator)
    • Have a read of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR before you put in too much work. Mr Stephen 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No original research? I didn't realise this was an academic paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 August 2006
        • Actually, it's an encyclopedia article. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Actually, academic papers require original research. Encyclopedias cannot. --ColourBurst 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable +/- vanity. Ifnord 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Metropolitan90 and because Thursday is a non-notable soccer day. -- Slowmover 18:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete non-professional, no references provided to even prove their existance, can't find anything else online. Probably a vanity article by some bored bankers. The claims about Total Football seem particularly suspect. --Robotforaday 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 00:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. "Unofficial name?" No Google hits, totally unverifiable. And I don't give out "strong deletes" easily. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, non-notable non-professional sports team. Fails verifiability policy. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong don't delete, because something doesn't appear on google, it should be deleted? Why not just redirect wikipedia.org to google.com? Besides, footballers are not the most likely of people to add to online encyclopedias - and computer geeks are not the most likely of people to be found playing football —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs) .
    • Hello again 217.33.207.242 - in fact, you'll find that there are a lot of active footballers who contribute to wikipedia- the difference is, they don't necessarily think the team that they play for is notable enough to be included, and so include information about actually notable teams. I do understand that you shouldn't just include stuff that's found on google- I was recently arguing against deletion of another article where poor returns from google were one of the reasons being cited for deletion. But what is essential is that the information is verifiable, as wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means, it must appear somewhere- e.g. in a book, a reputable newspaper, etc., and usually not just as a footnote in passing. This team of bankers seems so non-notable, I can't even get a foothold on where to start. If we include it, then we might as well include the football team I play for as well. I'm sure I can happily make claims about our adventurous style of Total Football as well.--Robotforaday 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anything I would guess the Banklacticos are pranksters, not world-class football stars playing incognito on Thursday nights. -- technopilgrim 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No delete. I say it's not the kind of thing to appear on google, but keep it unless the article can be proven to be false. There must be a way of verifying this through the end-of-season reviews of lower leagues, maybe they have a blog? To suggest they are unbeaten means there must be records of the matches played Mangochutney88 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is mangochutney88's first and only edit. Vickser 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A personal blog wouldn't count as a reputable source, and thus the information still wouldn't be considered as verfified. Wikipedia's policy is that things must be proven true to be included, not that they must be proven false to be excluded. Vickser 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as none of the information is verifiable by reliable sources, and even if it were, I don't think they're notable. Vickser 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sring Delete - likely hoax and even if not, NN. BlueValour 22:10, 7 August 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.