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.
Comment Interesting question: for a professional sport, are teams in the top level amateur league in the country notable? I think it's agreed the player's wouldn't be, but I am simply not sure about this. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an article that doesn't indicate why it's notable, like many other articles on Serie D teams. Todi has never reached professional status. I support the deletion and should be considered also the deletion of other articles. CapPixel (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - source added to verify existence + the claim that this team plays in Serie D, which is enough to meet WP:FOOTYN. And to answer DGG - yes, amateur teams are notable. GiantSnowman 15:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"All the teams that have played in the national cup are notable" etc.... Todi hasn't played in the Coppa Italia. CapPixel (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article completely rewritten with added notes. It is now equal to those of the other teams of Serie D: then if this is deleted, should be also be half that of Serie D. In Wikipedia teams of Serie D have always been encyclopedic: or all or none.--93.56.240.111 (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kiddy, where did you find on wikipedia policies that? Yes, half of the articles about Serie D teams should be deleted, I completely agree. CapPixel (talk)
I agree, non-notable Series D articles should be deleted. Those notable teams (such as those who win a Championship) have a better chance of being kept, but I think claims that "All Series D teams are notable" are not supported by the existing notability policies. Arguments that "All series D" must be kept are clueless on notability. That is a ridiculous argument, like saying "All respected amateur organizations should be kept", what are we, a sports magazine? --Cerejota (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, as it's an obscure club with no significant media coverage. Fails WP:FOOTYN, because they never participated in the Coppa Italia. Their website only claims a victory in the Coppa Italia Dilettanti (translated by Google Translate, so it could be wrong), but i couldn't verify it in a third-party source, and i'm not even sure if the Coppa Italia Dilettanti can be classified as a national cup. Kosm1fentWon't you talk to me? 08:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The teams of Serie D have always been considered encyclopedic. So before you delete some random you have to establish new criteria, valid for all teams, to be encyclopedic. Will be cleared only after, the teams that did not comply.--93.56.241.51 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We such criteria, WP:GNG. Amateurs teams not wholly notable, some are, some are not. This one isn't.--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. IP, you can't vote two times. ;) As you can read in wikipedia policies, most Serie D teams (such as Todi) do not deserve an article. CapPixel (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The teams of Serie D have always been considered encyclopedic." Based on what? Kosm1fentWon't you talk to me? 05:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also this year, as well as in other years, each team of Serie D has its own page. Todi plays this year in series D: because it must be the only of 168 teams not to have the page? Teams do not encyclopedic should be deleted all together. But before we should establish the criteria equal for all teams.--93.56.241.51 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered on which criterion/criteria you base that presuming notability of this article. Also read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING, so you can avoid your above kind of argument in a deletion discussion. Kosm1fentWon't you talk to me? 09:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the spirit of WP:FOOTYN, which is what we follow rather than the letter. That guideline is written in a way that allows amateur clubs at the tenth level of English football to be considered notable, and this club plays at the fifth level of Italian football. Are Italian clubs really so much less notable than English clubs as to allow such a large disparity? The fact that cup competitions in various countries have vastly different entry requirements shouldn't dictate our decisions about which articles to include. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, i could write an article about my neighbourhood's team, which plays in the Delta Ethniki. Because, if an local English amateur club at the tenth level of English football is notable, why should a team playing in the fourth level of Greek football not be considered notable as well? See? That doesn't make sense. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is all nice, but in the end, it justifies ignoring guidelines. Kosm1fentWon't you talk to me? 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does that not make sense? The cut-off level for Greece would be somewhat higher than for England or Italy, as it is a much smaller country, but it is perfectly sensible for us to have articles on clubs playing at the fourth level, and, in fact, if you follow your link to the league's article you will see that we do. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSerie D is a national championship and not regional. In fact it is assigned every year the Scudetto Dilettanti. They are not encyclopedic only the teams who have played only in Eccellenza, that is a regional championship or lower. --93.56.241.113 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, kiddy... based on what? By the way, your vote is going to be counted as one. CapPixel (talk) 09:07, 28 August 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.