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 - Speedy Deleted (A7) . Article made no attempt to show notability - amateurs in a local league with "77 fans" - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABCDE FC[edit]

ABCDE FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Amateur club that does not assert notability. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article actually looks like a joke, to me. Is there anyone who knows for sure if this team actually exists? Ω (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not a joke as it is listed on this page ([1]), but it's certainly not notable enough to have its own page. TheLeftorium 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now we're getting to the heart of my main concern regarding the notability argument. I can understand the WP:NOTE guideline, but WP:NOTE isn't enough of a reason on it's own to delete something, is it? Using lack of notability alone to argue for the deletion of a page seems to be imposing personal value judgments onto others. Maybe it's just my political leanings that are shining though here, but this sort of thing is something that I tend to "knee jerk" fight against. Ω (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. What argument would you use? (Note: I haven't voted delete yet) :) TheLeftorium 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could imagine an argument based on WP:NOT... "Wikipedia is not a directory" seems like it could fit... maybe WP:V? I'm barely familiar with the topic of this article, but I could easily see an argument being made re: notability is all, which is my main concern. The article seems to be dealing with a professional sports team, which would seem to make it notable enough to rate some sort of article... otherwise, who's value judgments on which professional teams are acceptable do we use? This argument against using notability in this manner seems obvious to me though, so I tend to worry that I'm not fully expressing myself when talking about it. Ω (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean now. Thanks for letting me know! :) TheLeftorium 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not at all subjective nor is it an attempt to make a value judgement about a subject. Notability is strictly defined for Wikipedia purposes as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Note the inclusion of "reliable sources" and independent sources". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not notable for Wikipedia purposes does not mean worthless or insignificant, just that it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then why base an argument on notability at all? You offered at least 2 alternative reasons in your comment right there... The problem is, if you really stop and look at all of these nominations then the issue with using notability should be obvious. I or anyone could probably nominate 100's of articles based on the notability guidelines by themselves... The way that I see it notability is a very useful guideline in concert with other policy, but it doesn't stand on it's own very well. This is actually articulated quite well within the notability guideline itself. Ω (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2009 (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.
More