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. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican football transfers summer 2009[edit]

The article has no references, besides the links at the bottom. A lot of it is written with slang words and there is a lot of gossip. Black 'n Red 04:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete, suggest that the author goes to the Mexican version of football rumours Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, even in this vastly improved form. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - In its current state, this article has no place on Wikipedia. However, if it could be filled up with actual transfers instead of rumours, it could be a decent article. – Pee Jay 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I know this sounds like an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but is there a reason why this article is not acceptable but List of English football transfers summer 2008 is? I would assume that references do exist out there, and if an article has problems that can be fixed, I see no reason to delete it at the moment. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never been that positive about this kind of articles. They are almost unmaintainable even when sources can be reasonably found and dedicated editors are heavily involved with them. Since I do not see any citation to reliable sources for the subject, and I doubt about the existence of dedicated editors who really know how to deal with the subject, then I would say it is better to put it off instead. --Angelo (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be improved, the article being unreferenced or being written with slang words are not reason for deletion. Most of its problems can be fixed without deleting the article. --Carioca (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:May I withdraw it, since its improved since the last time I nominated it. Black 'n Red 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~If you feel the article was improved and the original reasons for deletion does not apply anymore, you can withdraw the nomination. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

AFAIK, given that people have !voted to delete, the nom cannot be withdrawn but must run its course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are correct. I overlooked the delete !votes. --Carioca (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all other List of fooian football transfers. referenced(now) just needs a bit of a tidy--ClubOranje^T 07:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for continued improvement. The topic is notable and there is media coverage, so I see no issue. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2009 (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.