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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest Nepal[edit]

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

Non-notable football club. No evidence of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. They don't have their own stadium. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As article creator, I had assumed the club to be inherently notable having competed in the top division of an independent nation's football league and finished in the runners up spot, as confirmed by RSSSF. For additional sources, given that Palau itself does not have a particularly sizeable online presence, google searching is probably not the best way to look for sources, as they are more likely to be in print. Despite this, there have been a number of articles mentioning the team here:

A couple of these are blogs (although there is nothing in them to suggest that they are unreliable sources), but several are proper websites. I accept that this is a relatively minor team, but they have attracted some online commentary in secondary sources that show no indication of being unreliable, and doubtless there is additional information to be found within Palau print media. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those contain in depth coverage and the only two that mention the team in running text appear to be cut-n-paste copies. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In depth coverage is already provided in the references in the article. The RSSSF pages don't merely mention the team in passing, but provide full results, league standings and top goalscorers for the club for the 2004 season and 2006-07 season of the national league. The links above are intended to show that there has also been a degree of coverage elsewhere. In addition, your initial comment that they do not have their own stadium is irrelevant to this discussion, many small leagues in Oceania and Asia have only one ground or have multiple teams sharing only a couple of grounds due to lack of space, such as Bhutan, Hong Kong, American Samoa, etc. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playing in a national top flight is generally regarded as sufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'national top flight' league impies that there are other football leagues in Palau, which doesn't appear to be the case, since this article discusses how the creation of it's first national soccer league was important to improve it's international standings. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, it merely implies there is no higher league. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though it's a small country, a club that plays in the top-flight is generally notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2012 (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.