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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Block Blues

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am taking this to AfD again due to in part of WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:GNG asks for multiple reliable citations, yes, anything can be classed as reliable with the right citations, however this article is independent of Bengaluru FC and it's all about the supports of the football club, this is not necessary as there is plenty of space on the main club article to cover this information. Content forking is for when articles get too big, as Bengaluru FC is not that big an article this should be merge into the that article. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what has changed since the first AFD? Consensus was that the topic meets GNG. It needs expanding/improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply GiantSnowman Improbable to expanded, this is content fork of Bengaluru FC as noted and is not independent of the club. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing has changed since the last AfD. Multiple additional sources were noted in the previous AfD, which need to be incorporated. The whole content fork argument is irrelevant, this is a fan group which while they support Bengaluru, are independent of the club and so should be judged on their own merits. It is in fact where supporters groups are not notable that they might be added to a club culture section in the club article if comment is needed at all. This situation is the opposite of that. Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Fenix down And exactly how are they independent of the club? Govvy (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're a supporters group, they are not an official part of the club. They're independent in the same way the players are independent of the club, or the ground. The point you need to be addressing is what has changed since the last AfD. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I don't see this topic being independent of the club, nor would it exist without the club, the are inherently linked, nothing has changed since the last AfD, article hasn't improved and the whole topic can be represented in Bengaluru FC. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK< but it was established that the group were independently notable in the last AfD, so the question remains valid, what has changed since the last AfD? Subjects can be inherently linked whilst still being independent. Furthermore the fact that the article has not yet been improved since the last AfD is no reason for deletion now, particularly when further useful sources were noted. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the AfD, including the notability. SportingFlyer talk 11:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Note to closer WP:CONTENTFORK of Bengaluru FC#Support, No extensive additions have been made to article, all the keep votes have failed to understand the content-fork scenario. Nor have they bothered to clearly explain why this article deserves independence of the club article. Nor do I believe any of these people have actually read the citations, which talk mainly about the supporters supporting Bengaluru FC, and more about the football club, which doesn't offer total RS for this article. Govvy (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD wasn't wrong: the club met WP:GNG then and it still does now. There are at least three good sources significantly covering the group (not the team) in the first two pages of Google results. It's a clear keep. Perhaps you were seeking a merge request, but there's enough there to write a better standalone article IMO. SportingFlyer talk 13:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About supporters from a club, where there is clearly enough space on the club article to write about the supporters. I am sorry, but I personally think all these keep votes are pathetic. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (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.