Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian 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 delete. --Coredesat 05:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Brazilian F.C.
Soccer team at 11th level of English system; not notable. NawlinWiki 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete absent a showing of significant coverage in third-party sources. It is possible that the organization they belong to merits an article, but not every single team merits an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- BTW, somebody might want to take a look at Middlesex County Football League just to see if it's notable, and see if the rest of the teams might be worth deleting. FrozenPurpleCube 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the team - general consensus seems to be that teams only warrant an entry if they're level 10 or above on the pyramid unless they've done something unusual, and this one's on level 11. Keep the league, though - there aren't that many leagues in the pyramid, and I do think it's useful (eek! a Forbidden Word!) having articles on the leagues to illustrate the structure — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, I can accept that the league itself is reasonable to include (though I would prefer more sources, and I'm not at all committed to keeping it), but I'm concerned about the half a dozen or so individual teams with articles and the rest that are red-linked. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW on the teams, the only one I'd keep of the current batch would be Stonewall F.C. who do get the odd bit of press coverage as the only all-gay team at a respectable level in the pyramid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I can accept that the league itself is reasonable to include (though I would prefer more sources, and I'm not at all committed to keeping it), but I'm concerned about the half a dozen or so individual teams with articles and the rest that are red-linked. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per accepted precident. As far as the side issue goes: I would argue that the league itself is notable. Resolute 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. If Stonewall FC are to be kept becaused they are an all gay team then this club is similar in that it is also from one specific group, Brazilians in England. If it were by some chance kept because of the club being specifically from the Brazilian community in England, it reads like a press release for the club and as if it were copied and pasted from their website. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm only (weakly) arguing to keep Stonewall because they get the odd bit of press coverage, rather than that they're unusual in and of themselves. Brazilian FC may get coverage themselves in the Portuguese language press, which for (hopefully) obvious reasons I can't check - and I'm guessing it might be a bit tricky to find them by googling "Brazilian football" — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes sorry I wasn't suggesting that Brazilian FC should be kept as my vote is to delete. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm only (weakly) arguing to keep Stonewall because they get the odd bit of press coverage, rather than that they're unusual in and of themselves. Brazilian FC may get coverage themselves in the Portuguese language press, which for (hopefully) obvious reasons I can't check - and I'm guessing it might be a bit tricky to find them by googling "Brazilian football" — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:28, 11 June 2007 (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.
