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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal national under-14 football team[edit]

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

PROD contested by Author. U-14 is not notable. – Michael (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Official AFC source provided. Article are also stubs for future encyclopaedic development. Moreover, Wikiproject Football has an essay on notability, where it does not dictate that all U14 sides are automatically not notable, as the editor above suggested. Ayoopdog (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Both fail WP:GNG, U-14 football is not notable, precedent at this previous 2014 AFC U-14 Championship AfD... JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that U-14 football is un-notable is redunant. Please see: Football at the 2013 Asian Youth Games for example. And the reason why there are red links is because of editors like yourselves creating a culture that inhibits the encyclopaedic development of U14 articles. Ayoopdog (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Although only embryonic, I believe there is sufficient opinion to indicate that initial consensus shown here and here relating to U-14 level footbal is that they are not necessarily inherently notable and require sourced prose. Not sure that exists here, the only prose in the article is about the stadium and is only tangentially relevant. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading WP:OVERZEALOUS and WP:OBSCURE, I must highlight that obscurity is not grounds for deletion. The article needs expansion with more prose sources, not a nuke option. Ayoopdog (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refresh your understanding of WP:AGF with regards to your comments re Overzealous. Please also note that these are essays not guidelines, and so don't really count in AfDs. You're quite right though, if possible the article needes expanding with significant, reliable sources (i.e. not WP:ROUTINE match reports, squad listings and the like). However, these do not seem to exist. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:GNG and previous consensus. Giant Snowman 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (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.