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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Borac Banovci[edit]

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

Article about a football club that does not show how it meets WP:ORG. Presently not listed at List of football clubs in Croatia and no indication that this team plays in any of the professional leagues in that country (claims to play in "County League" which isn't given on said list either). Non-English sources may exist, but I can't find anything to show notability. Note: I had tagged this for speedy A7, but improvements to the article seem to preclude that. Kinu ^t/_c 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. County leauge (4 županijska liga) is the lowest league in Croatian football leuge. The first source is site which deals with events in these leagues. Another source is the official website of Municipality of Nijemci that talks about all the clubs from Municipality. Also, as far as I understand, is not necessary that the article has the highest importance that it should not delete according to the rules of Wikipedia that were attached to the proposal for delete. So that even a weaker team, which does not play in top leagues, if someone is at something interesting, could get an article on Wikipedia.

Finally, the article is still in its initial phase and of course it does not provide much information. Over time it can be improved and developed further (it is one of the best things on Wikipedia). I hope my statement will not be judged as aggressive, I mean it could be another solid article. Thank you for your time! User:MirkoS18 —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Amateur village club, with no evidence of notability. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed without any explanation. In my opinion it does qualify for speedy deletion (under WP:CSD#A7), but since this discussion has been started I am willing to let it go its course, at least for a while, to see if anyone can provide any justification for keeping. (Note: Kinu says "no indication that this team plays in any of the professional leagues". This is not surprising, since the article states that the club is amateur: "Borac footballers take participation as volunteer and for their efforts do not receive financial benefits".) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet checked for sources indicating notability, so won't provide a bolded "keep" or "delete", but would like to correct the implication made by the nominator and JamesBWatson that a club has to be professional to be notable. There is no such requirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see where I implied that. I said "Amateur village club, with no evidence of notability": I did not say "Amateur club, and therefore not notable". In most cases an amateur village club is not notable, but there certainly are exceptions. However, in this case there is no evidence that the club is notable, which is what I said: "with no evidence of notability". That is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as saying that an amateur club can never be notable, but mentioning that it is an amateur village club is relevant, because it makes it clear that there cannot be a presumption of notability, and that clear evidence is necessary. (My other comment was just an attempt to clarify a point made by Kinu, not part of my reason for deletion, which is why I parenthesised it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTag for speedy deletion was removed because of this: Tag was added because the article did not contain any sources, tag was removed after sources was added. As the article wrote, the club plays in 4. County leauge (4 županijska liga) which is an integral part of the Croatian football league. Although the players are playing as volunteer, some of them continue to play in major clubs in Croatia or Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.104.90 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just saw that I was wrong all the time, Borac does not compete in the fourth but in the third county leauge (you could see that on croatian Wikipedia) http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_Borac_Banovci . I will correct it.

User:MirkoS18

Based on Croatian football league system, am I correct in assuming that the third county league is the 7th level of football in the Croatian system? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right. The third county leauge is the 7th level of football in the Croatian system of the professional leagues.User:MirkoS18 —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete 1. Fails to meet football-specific guidelines set at WP:FOOTYN - the club never appeared in the Croatian Cup and never competed in any national-level league competition (which would be one of the top two Croatian levels). FYI the top level is fully professional while the second and third level are semi-pro. Everything below that is considered amateur, and Borac Banovci is in the 7th level. 2. Also fails WP:GNG - absolutely no significant coverage in secondary sources such as any of the five Croatian national dailies. Timbouctou (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep1.The article contains independent outside sources (On the official website of the Municipality which is an integral part of the Croatian state organization, and also on the site that specifically deals with issues related to third county leagues). The club competes in one of the Croatian Leagues (Although it is only the seventh in a row). Article with basic information about the club and also gives details about club's history, organisation. Notability is not the same as fame, this means that the article about the club does not must appear in any of five Croatian national dailies. There is one more source that I will add now in article http://www.tntl.hr/casopis/tintl_5.pdf . On 23. page is text obout matches in third county leagues (4 matches including match NK Borac Banovci), The article contains the names of the players, place were match was, the result, the situation on a table.--161.53.179.226 (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep It would be great to make articles about other clubs in third county leauge. So than we will had better covered the entire Croatian football league--161.53.179.232 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be "good" to do so, but the issue under discussion is whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you wish to argue that those criteria should be broadened, then you are very welcome to do so, but this is not the place to do it, as this deletion discussion will be decided on the basis of the current criteria. On a separate issue, are you (the editor saying "keep" from 161.53.179.232) the same person who said "keep" above from 161.53.179.226? Both the very similar IP addresses (both assigned to the same organisation) and your similar editing history strongly suggest that you may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club doesn't compete at a sufficient level to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The club plays well below the level where there would be a presumption of notability per WP:FOOTYN, and I can see no independent reliable sources with significant coverage in the article, in this discussion, or in my own searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication of significant coverage, meaning the club fails WP:GNG, and the club does play at a high enough level to be presumed notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does not have enough references, so it fails GNG. I did tag it for speedy deletion, per A7, but it got Afd. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keepThe theme is solidly covered. The article provides important historical and other information about the club so it is (with sports), interesting also from historical aspect. That club is not famous means that it should be classified as low on the scale of importance in categories such as sport or Croatia. The article is better than many that I encountered on Wikipedia. By the way, I think that the references are satisfactory. It should be well thought out, and not rush with deletion because it would be a shame because of destroyed an source of interesting knowledge.--Samuel VI (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all of that has little relation either to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or to the reasons given above for deletion. However "solidly" the "theme" is covered, if the subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines then it does not qualify for an article. "The article is better than many that I encountered on Wikipedia" is not a reason for keeping it: see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. Finally, you may well see it as a "source of interesting knowledge", but unless it is a source of knowledge about a notable subject then that is irrelevant, and amounts to no more than saying that you personally like it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello people! I think it's pretty clear that this my article will be deleted. Of course I am not so happy because of that, but I think I can offer a compromise solution. I think it would be good to copy this article, to shorten it a bit, and then add into article Šidski Banovci. I hope you accept my "greenness" in editing Wikipedia as an excuse. Thank you for your patience and calmness.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2011 (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.