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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled F.C.[edit]

Note to admins, please do not close this until the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RE: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mido z05 is resolved BigHairRef | Talk 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable soccer club. Speedy declined "asserts notability", but I'm not sure why. No references but Facebook and the web-site of the league in which they play, for which see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Leaf Soccer Club. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am the main reference for this club there are no other reference to the club. i created it and i put it together. facebook reference i for a group i created on the club it self. The league reference i put in case it was needed i did believe i did any harm. Please clarify why its being deleted. If i have no other reference how am i suppose to get it. i am the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mido z05 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) NB: user is now under indefinite block for being a sockpuppet of Hussizle.  RGTraynor  10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Now unblocked. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment This is a legitimate team and has no false information whatsoever. It meets all article guidelines and should not be deleted. Any lack of legitimacy is simply due to the recreational nature of the league, which is not an excuse for deletion. What reference could possible be needed besides the website of the league itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussizle (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — Hussizle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BigHairRef | Talk 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be all true but that is not enough. In order to have an article in Wikipedia a subject must be of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article. The Wikipedia term for that is notable, and the standard required is explained at Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). Articles must also be verifiable from independent reliable sources. What that means is that, unless other people independent of your club have found it interesting enough to write about, it doesn't qualify for an article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to list every club and company and organisation in the world, JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry sir but there is no way to explain your logic other than complete BULLSHIT. When i click on random article and see nonsense articles that are no longer than a single page, how is it that they can be allowed? They talk about things/people that have no interest to anyone.....such as.....Fredrick M. Lord, Craig Leipold, and Jon Ola Norbom...those are just 3 consecutive articles that came up when i clicked random article and proved my point. The beauty of wikipedia is that articles about everything are found. It is not right for you to delete this article, which is of a legitimate soccer club in a legitimate league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussizle (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No, it is of an amateur bunch of guys in the Monday night rec league, which fails the above listed criteria and would fail that of individuals at WP:ATHLETE, which holds that only "fully professional" athletes or amateurs at the "highest level of amateur play" are notable. By contrast, Craig Leipold is a multimillionaire who is the owner of a NHL franchise, Frederick W. Lord was a United States Congressman, and Jon Ola Norbom was a Norwegian cabinet minister. Contrary to popular notion, Wikipedia is not, in fact, for "articles about everything." I strongly recommend you and your friends review the links above, as well as WP:PILLAR, so you have a better idea as to our criteria for inclusion.  RGTraynor  20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article clearly fails WP:V with its one source being facebook no mentions of the club on a google search except for the wiki entry. Fails the general notability guideline, and per RGTraynor. New users should read the aforementioned guidelines, as well as WP:CIVIL before further comments - Toon⁰⁵ 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-professional recreational league. This having an entry is one step below my cat having one. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had already speedied this article but it seems to have been re-created. As another user has indicated they believe it asserts notability, I don't support re-speedying as a G4, but would rather see this process through. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd also speedied it due to lack of notability. CultureDrone (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Notability is lacking. – 'Latics ^(talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy delete - First, not notable. Second, they used a wrong template which is for national football team. Surely that this football club is neither a professional nor amateur club. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn amateur team. --Jimbo^[online] 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - non-notable. GiantSnowman 16:12, 24 July 2008 (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.