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. If people want to userify or redirect, that can be discussed on the talk page. Not a discussion for AfD. No consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bashinformsvyaz-Dynamo Ufa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Football clubs aren't presumed notable. There are no sources independent of the subject (or the league) which discuss the team, even in Russian. This book is a mere mention to prove the team exists. Redirects are costly so deletion is better. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Russia. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. With no independent sources provided, I can't justify a "keep" recommendation. However, it appears that every other club that played in the Russian Second Division during this era does have a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability says, "Teams that have played in the national cup ... generally meet WP:GNG criteria." This club did indeed participate in the Russian Cup tournament for 2009-10 and 2010-11. I would be reluctant to say that "there are no sources independent of the subject (or the league) which discuss the team, even in Russian" without doing much more research, and it's often said that redirects are cheap, not costly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Looking at the Russian wikipedia page for this I am going to suggest a weak keep. There are some sources there, not sure if they are good enough, there is more content there also. But I am no good with Russian. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. Giant Snowman 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, use Russian Wikipedia to expand.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editors GiantSnowman and Govvy: I took a look at the ru-wiki article using Google translate, which you should try. Half of those citations are from some guy's website, https://22duraka.ucoz.ru/. It implies it is volunteer-written so it fails WP:SPS but by all means open the links and translate for yourselves. The two bashinforum cites might be ok but I have doubts championat is RS based upon archived versions like this. Before knee-jerk inclusionism, please take a look at the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Metropolitan90 mentions userfying or a redirect, if this article is not Kept, where would it be userfied? Or what would its redirect target be if became a redirect page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 9 October 2022 (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.