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 redirect all. Valid points are made all around, (although there is no policy or guideline I am aware of that says all European football club presidents are automatically notable) redirecting seems like a good compromise solution. If better/more sourcing can be located for specific individuals they can always be split back off into their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Chrisafidis

[edit]

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

Article that fails WP:GNG, and as far as I'm aware, being president of a club does not make a person inherently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that European football club presidents are notable. The featured List of FC Barcelona presidents hints at this (although I'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and I'm sure with a bit of research, these articles can be improved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 October 2010
Incubate the lot of them for now. In their present condition, these add almost nothing to the encyclopedia and would be best off deleted. But as GS says above me, the people may well be notable. So let's give them a chance to be improved without compromising on quality. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to think that chairmen of a club like AEK would be inherently notable and that sufficient sources are probably out there (especially for the more recent ones). Anyone read Greek? Eldumpo (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure many of these people may be notable in the Greek business community, but in the wider world at large, they probably aren't especially noteworthy. The AEK Athens F.C. page does a fine job of listing them, and unless they have achieved other notable feats I can't see much worth in their remaining. Some of them, like poor old Ilias Georgopoulos, are sitting ducks for vandals, because their pages are probably unvisited for a long period.(AbrahamCat (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Listing former presidents is fair enough (whether it be on the club page or a seperate article, but there's no indication that these people are notable enough to warrant individual articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to AEK Athens F.C.. They are plausible search terms and redirects are cheap. This would also make it easy enough for someone to pull out the article and expand it should verifiable information be found. Location (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Agree with Location. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be general agreement that the position is notable, and if the present position is, so it was in the past also. The question is whether its worth having articles with so little information. I see no harm in starting with a mere list, & if the articles didn't exist, I wouldn't make them. But if the list has already been expanded into articles, then regardless of the possibly small extent of content in these articles, I cannot see the benefit of reducing them back to a list. It makes much more sense to devote the effort to expanding articles or writing missing ones. Tinkering with arrangement is unproductive as compared with writing. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all The referencing is currently extremely weak for all of the articles so I don't see how we could keep them in their current condition. By redirecting (without deleting) we improve navigation and make it easy to retrieve the article history for someone who wants to restart an article with new sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, I also agree with redirecting the articles for the reason listed above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (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.