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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alliancen[edit]

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

PROD contested on editor's whim that they would prefer an AfD. No indication of notability in the article whatsoever. WP:GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Is it necessary to (again) violate WP:FAITH in the nominating statement? I expressed concerns that the team may be notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No good faith issues here. You clearly stated that you would rather see AfD than a prod without providing any evidence for notability. Please provide some links to sources supporting GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article needs expanding, but seems to be similar to Stævnet, and played in front of large crowds. Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Denmark, which could do with expanding and improving itself. Giant Snowman 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would be happy with a redirect instead of my initial nomination. There has been no indication of GNG other than simply saying it is notable, but I accept that as a representative team, it is a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this team is likely to be notable, as it is similar to Stævnet or London XI. The article could need some more sources, but it isn't easy to find online sources from that period. This shouldn't redirect to Football in Denmark unless it is actually mentioned in that article. Mentoz (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something other than keep, in a weakish sort of way. This doesn't seem notable to me. I agree with @Mentoz86: that Football in Denmark would be a poor merge target because that article doesn't mention this team at all. I'm wondering if maybe there's a place for History of Football in Denmark, as a common collection point for information about teams which don't exist any more. Individually, they may not be notable (although, I'm sure you can point to particular examples of no-longer-existing teams which were notable on their own), but collectively, they might make a good article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (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.