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 merge to Bengaluru FC. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bengaluru FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The main bulk of the content and citations are directly copied from main article about the club. A separate article is not needed for such a young club. I recommend deletion and merge the little content back to Bengaluru FC. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - History page is a more detailed summary of the club history compared to main page. Inception and the first season are important for both pages, that's the reason it has a lot of similarity. The later seasons contain only major points in the main page. Coderzombie (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply History club articles are meant to be an expansion of the main club history when the original article gets to large or too vast to navigate. (WP:BRANCH). Barnet F.C. is an 129 year old English club which doesn't have a separate article for it's history or it's fans. The only reason why you have a separate article for your fans is because a number of editors even admins have failed to understand simple guidelines of WP:BRANCH and WP:COMMONSENSE. Your football club expanse is only four years old. It may pass WP:GNG on it's own, but when it's counts to the subject as a whole and you already have the main body of the article in the original club article you created then COMMONSENSE applies. For what you have created at the moment is simply copying the majority what you have written on the main article. The article is still a young tree my friend. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find it very hard to believe we need a pov-fork article on history for anything under 10 years old. Even that seems very low, but 4 years for a "history" article is just crazy low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, could you try harder to voice AFD opinions that have a connection to wikipedia policy? I am sure, with some effort, all kinds of instances where an article on something recent merited a valid policy compliant fork could be offered to counter the opinion you offered here. But why go to that effort, when you haven't made the effort to offer any connection to the policies and guidelines that opinions here are supposed to be based on? Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, I just refreshed my memory on what WP:POVFORK addresses -- forks that seem triggered by someone's desire to push their (biased) point of view. Isn't it potentially an insult to characterize someone's efforts as a POV fork, when the content they added is not biased? Has anyone got a serious reason to accuse any of the contributors to this article of showing bias?

    And, as I noted below, the article creator did not actually cut and paste any material from the article on the club. Rather they created 14k of valid, coherent, properly referenced brand new material. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - does not merit a separate article, should be merged back with parent. GiantSnowman 07:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Anything worthwhile back to the club article. The history of a club 4-years old is too shot to merit a history article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per above two !votes. Four years as a club does not warrant a separate article. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Three contributors above call for a merge "back" into the main article. Hmmm. Was this article forked from the article on the club?

  Nope. The record shows Coderzombie wrote the first draft, of about 14K, on 2016-05-31. If this were an actual fork, we would see something like 10-14K trimmed from the main article. The record shows Coderzombie did edit the article about the club, on that date, but their edits [1], [2], were merely relatively minor mundane copy-editing.

  So, this part of the merge suggestions is based on a misconception. Coderzombie's creation of this article followed seven routine copy editing changes to the article about the club. They cut nothing from the main article to create this article. It seems to me that the creation of 14k of coherent and properly documented content is something we should applaud.

  A general theme of those calling for delete or merge seems to be that the topic of the history of this sports club just doesn't seem significant enough to merit a standalone wikipedia article. But wait a second, we are supposed to rely on GNG and other notability guidelines, when determining notability. Sufficient references that cover a topic in detail is the gold standard there. I don't remember any deletion or notability policy or guideline that says we should rely a feeling that a topic just doesn't seem significant enough to merit an article to determine notability.

  Sorry, no offense, but basing an AFD opinion on whether a topic SEEMS significant is an instance of a lapse from the good advice at WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  The main article is already pretty long. As are 2013–14 Bengaluru FC season, 2014–15 Bengaluru FC season, 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season, 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season, and they seem coherent and well referenced, as well. Forking off subtopics, when a main topic is already long is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

  Merge proponents routinely overlook the serious disadvantages of unnessary merges.

1. If we merged this article, and the other articles, into the article on the club, its length could cause an uncomfortable delay, on rendering.
2. It is easier for readers to go to some other information by clicking on a link, than searching for it with a browser's search function, or visually scanning for that info, while scrolling. Clicking on a link has the further advantage that the reader can return back to where they started by clicking on the back button. If they went to the related information through scrolling, or the browser's search function, returning to where one was, before looking for that additional information requires MORE searching.
3. unnecessary merges erode the value of the "what links here" button, and of our watchlists. Only articles, full articles, can go on a watchlist. We can't have a watchlist for a mere section of an article. When the wikipedia consists of smaller, more focused articles, then our watchlists can be more nuanced, more useful. Similarly, when every article is focussed on a single topic, a reader can trust more fully that anything that links to the article they are currently reading is actually related to the topic they want to know about. Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I've never seen you contribute to WP:Football project, yet you seem to think Bengaluru FC is a big article. Trust me, it's small compared to most football clubs. Also we use a set Manual of Style and what has happened here in my view is that the History article has been created way to early. You're looking way to deep into this. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big? The article is long, many bytes. As to how important those who work on the Football project consider it, compared with other football clubs? I neither know nor care. Are you really arguing that the article is too long, because there are articles on football clubs that you consider to be more important, for some reason, that are shorter this this article?

Wow. That is a new one on me.

With regard to this manual of style, are you saying the Football project has its own manual of style, and this article, somehow violates that manual of style? If so, I have two questions for you. First, please point to the manual, and show us exactly how this article is violating it. Second, I have never heard of deleting an article merely because the current state didn't conform to a manual of style. The usual response to an article with stylistic problems is to try and fix them, call for fixing them on the article's talk page, or selectively add appropriate tags. If you are recommending deletion over an issue of style, please understand that is highly unusual. Please explain which exceptional stylistic problem can't be resolved through simple editing, so it requires deletion.

You say I am "looking way to {sic} deep into this". Nominator Govvy, the first line of your nomination: "The main bulk of the content and citations are directly copied from main article about the club." is, to be charitable, wildly incorrect. If you find having that drawn to other readers' attention embarrassing, I am afraid I don't think I have anything to apologize for. I don't go out of my way to embarrass other contributors, when I think they lapse from policy, as we are all fallible. But, really, isn't a better response to finding one's self embarrassed to resolve to be more careful, in future? Geo Swan (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Geo Swan:, I really have no idea what you're on about. Our project MoS is here. The history for a football club should only be expanded to another article when it gets too big due to previous consensus, but you don't know that because you don't take part in the project. Govvy (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you got the right page? You sent me to what looks like a draft. It looks incomplete, and prior to any agreement. And, even if were agreed upon, I don't see where it says anything barring the creation of articles like this. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no need for this fork at this stage in the club's history. Insufficient encyclopedic content for a standalone article, current length is fine for main club article. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or just delete, as the history at Bengaluru FC and the individual season pages already cover all of this material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - no apparent reason for this fork, since the club is so young. There's not much different info here than in the main article. WP:TOOSOON applies. If the club's history was much longer, we'd cut back the history section in the main article correspondingly, to make the content easier to maintain. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 3 November 2017 (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.