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. Kurykh (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TOCA Football[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are regurgitated press releases , blogs or niche publications. Nothing substantive or reliable. Author removing maintenance tags does not improve confidence in this article. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Vellela, I would be grateful for your feedback on which sources were insufficiently reputed. The main sources are Sports Illustrated (si.com) and Inside World Football (http://www.insideworldfootball.com/), which is a well reputed industry publication. Also - would be good to know which parts you feel are written like an advertisement. It all seems objective information to me. Having spent time developing the page, I would be grateful for pointers on how to improve the page and any others I do, rather than just having it deleted. Sorry you felt I incorrectly removed the block - I only did so because I thought I had resolved the issues. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Fish (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave others to make that judgment to avoid any suggestion of partiality. Incidentally, it is often unwise to make assumptions about the gender of editors, such assumptions can often prove to be wrong. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Apologies for the use of 'Mr'. I only did it because I saw others on your Talk doing so. Hope no offence was taken. Ben Fish (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A purely promotional article that attempts to inherit notability from its founder and its users. I'd advise the article creator to read WP:INHERITORG, WP:GNG, and definitely WP:COI Exemplo347 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment(possible merge?) doesn't seem notable, but perhaps some of the information and sourcing could be merged or shifted with the Eddie Lewis article. There is already a section of the subject on the after mentioned article and it could be expanded with the info and sources from this article if it is deemed relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2017 (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.