Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NK Višnjevac (2nd nomination)

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 all except NK Višnjevac and NK Draga. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a bit of a botched AfD procedure that I took the time to correct, I'm also taking the liberty to also amend the phrasing of the result - there is no consensus for NK Višnjevac and NK Draga because three people did not amend their delete opinion, while four did. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Višnjevac

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

A bunch of non-notable football club stubs created by Cro ed (talk · contribs). They are all currently playing in Croatian third level, none of them have ever appeared in the national cup or the Croatian top level league and thus they all fail WP:FOOTYN. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's all a product of filling out the red links in Template:Treća HNL? Should we delink them then, or even remove the whole navbox? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template about a year ago but the non-notables were not red-linked specifically for this reason. Over half of the clubs in third level had articles so it made sense to create a template to facilitate navigation. However, the league expanded to four divisions in the meantime and my guess is that the ratio changed in favour of non-notables. So yes, deleting the template is a good idea because it seems to have lost its purpose. Timbouctou (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No evidence that these teams meet notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No sources to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including the template box - As above. Neutrality^talk 07:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, incl. template - In addition to nominator's rationale, no assertion in any of the articles of meeting WP:CLUB. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute. According to Treća HNL two of these clubs have actually won a third division title, and I have verified this with the RSSSF. That's a very reasonable claim to notability, particularly when you consider that the "bar" for English football is any club which has ever competed in the top ten tiers, the FA Cup or FA Vase. I would therefore suggest that we keep NK Višnjevac and NK Draga, but delete the rest. —WFC— 21:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with the deletion of the template btw. —WFC— 21:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with WFC. Leaving the 3rd league champions may not be a bad idea. However, the have none sources in their articles... FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've referenced this specific fact, and tagged both with {{refimprove}}. —WFC— 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right WFC, I only looked for these clubs in cup and league archives and I didn't notice Draga and Višnjevac were 3. HNL winners in 2003–04. However weak their claim to fame may be, the achievement alone seems enough to presume notability. I agree with keeping those two. Timbouctou (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NK Višnjevac and NK Draga, but delete the rest, per EFC's research & reasoning. Giant Snowman 12:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, on which WP:NFOOTY ("fully professional league") is partly based, the Croation 3rd Division is not listed as a fully pro league and thus winning that division would not count as granting notability in itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true for players who have played for the clubs – even during the championship winning seasons – but not the clubs themselves. A player might not be notable for playing at a semi-professional club, but the club may nonetheless meet the GNG. In my judgement, and that of others who have commented since my initial post, it can be assumed that the winner of the third division will have received significant coverage in reliable sources. —WFC— 13:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed notability is fine for keeping an article from being CSD'd or PROD'ed but as an AFD has been called, actual notability really needs to be demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But the achievement has been demonstrated, and four people including the original nominator accept it as something which couldn't plausibly have failed to achieve significant coverage. Systemic bias is something worth bearing in mind: it is not plausible that an English, Scottish or American club of equivalent stature would be deleted. Provided the balance of probability is strong enough, it makes sense to err on the side of keeping. I would note that many of the other clubs are probably of similar stature, but due to the absence of a strong presumption of notability I have !voted delete. —WFC— 14:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried verifying WP:GNG by googling in Croatian to find local sources, but it's very hard to google for NK Draga's third league feat in Croatian, because clubs aren't always referred to with the NK prefix, and the word "draga" itself happens to match a very common Croatian adjective (meaning 'dear'), so the search engine's (otherwise useful) declension rules kick in and the search result becomes completely useless. It does seem fishy that analogous searches for NK Višnjevac don't find anything, either - I tried (without quotes) "višnjevac prvi u trećoj ligi" and "višnjevac osvojio treću ligu". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NK Višnjevac and NK Draga - As stated above, winning the Croatian third division appears to confer notability. Delete the rest. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 1 October 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.