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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arirang F.C.[edit]

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

Even though this club has participated in the defunct Filipino Premier League, it fails WP:GNG and per WP:NOTTEMPORARY also I haven't seen this club being active in any football game since the league's dissolution. FairyTailRocks (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - participated in the top level of its national league system. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A team that participated in a top flight league, even for a single season, is notable by default. –H T D 09:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. WP:FOOTYN is clear on this as generally accepted consensus. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – strange to draw attention to WP:NOTTEMPORARY as a deletion argument; football teams that have played at the top level of competition in their country at any time are considered notable, as it is expected that significant coverage would have been received. This notability was established then, so NOTTTEMPORARY supports that this article be kept, as do I, for the reasons indicated here. C 679 20:48, 16 December 2013 (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.