Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skrita Sila Mudrevo
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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Skrita Sila Mudrevo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD on the grounds that there is a strong indication of notability, however notability has not been proven and there is no reliable information which establishes notability. Sites checked include Soccerbase, Soccerway, FootballZZ, Playerhistory, Transfermarkt and RSSSF. None of these sites indicate the existence of the club, let alone establish any notability. Cloudz679 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. A G-search of the club's Bulgarian name (thanks Phil) shows a Facebook page and is mentioned on a few blogs, that's it. GiantSnowman 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about the Google News search? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In reply to the nomination statement, here is confirmation of existence from Soccerway, Playerhistory and RSSSF. The other sites listed make no claim to cover any level in Bulgaria below A PFG, so it is unsurprising that there is no mention of this club in them. More importantly than existence, notability per WP:GNG is clearly demonstrated by the reliable sources found by the Google News search that I linked above, including Darik Radio[1][2], Sportal.bg[3], Dobruja Tribune[4], Monitor[5] and many others. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| chat _ 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN & also fails WP:GNG hasn't received significant media coverage. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have demonstrated above that this club has received significant media coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No you haven't demonstrated that whatsoever. The 2nd reference refers to the fact Miroslav Miroslavov scored 9 goals, the 3rd reference no more then routine if X beats Y they play Z. The 5th is about injustice & possible match fixing but doesn't refer to the team in any depth. The first is probable the best but just confirms it is a little known obscure club & the 4th I admit is difficult to decipher but it's about restructing of the club, hardly exhibits notability. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's much better sourcing than we have for most of the clubs at the tenth level of the English pyramid that are routinely considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "most of the clubs at the tenth level of the English pyramid" are not being discussed here. Cloudz679 11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's much better sourcing than we have for most of the clubs at the tenth level of the English pyramid that are routinely considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No you haven't demonstrated that whatsoever. The 2nd reference refers to the fact Miroslav Miroslavov scored 9 goals, the 3rd reference no more then routine if X beats Y they play Z. The 5th is about injustice & possible match fixing but doesn't refer to the team in any depth. The first is probable the best but just confirms it is a little known obscure club & the 4th I admit is difficult to decipher but it's about restructing of the club, hardly exhibits notability. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:52, 7 May 2012 (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.