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).
Cloudz679 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆
DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge & redirect to
Football in Turkey, as probable search term, but no evidence of independent notability.
GiantSnowman 13:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - article is now in a much better shape and has even more potential, so I am changing my !vote.
GiantSnowman 13:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep. On account of the recent improvements made to the article. Perhaps WP:FOOTYN should be revised to be more inclusive?
Mattythewhite (
talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails all relevant guidelines.
EdinburghWanderer 00:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. So the whole fifth level of football in Turkey is unnotable according to
WP:FOOTBALL regulars, the same people who consider individual clubs at the tenth level in a smaller country (England) notable? The level of systemic bias in this project is simply incredible.
Here are 13,500 potential sources that should be examined before a decision is taken to delete this.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. This
League contains teams such as
Zonguldakspor that plays in Group 13.
Zonguldakspor played in the
Turkish Super League from 1974-88. There is evidence of
Zonguldakspor playing in
1994–95 Turkish Cup and other years in the 1990s with reference to Turkish Wikipedia. The ground capacity of Zonguldakspor is 13,795. This evidence demonstrates that there are teams in the Turkish Regional Amateur League that are clearly notable. If a league contains notable teams then surely the league itself should be considered notable. (
League Octopus (League Octopus 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC))reply
It are not the teams playing in a league, that makes the league notable. Notability is not inherited.
Night of the Big Windtalk 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The underlying issue here is that so few clubs (72) are allowed to enter the
Turkish Cup. This leaves a distorted situation where a fifth tier Turkish league which caters for clubs with properly enclosed grounds (some with a capacity of more than 10,000), stands, terracing, floodlights etc. is excluded from English Wikipedia - which really is a nonsense. Yet at the same time we (myself included) fully support the inclusion of village leagues in England such as the
St. Edmundsbury Football League (Level 18 and 19) where we play on park and village pitches, some which do not even have changing rooms. The standard reply I know is -
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Would it be helful to defer this one and properly debate league notability on
WP:FOOTY or am I just going over old ground? (
League Octopus (League Octopus 12:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC))reply
I won't stop you when you AfD "St. Edmundsbury Football League"...
Night of the Big Windtalk 13:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Attack of the WP:FOOTY Groupthink, Part XIII (at least as far as the first few comments goes). The briefest of glances at the articles of those teams we have articles for at this level suggests that this level of the Turkish pyramid (not a single league) suggests that there are enough big teams (in terms of stadium capacity if nothing else) to suggest that secondary coverage will be sufficient here to build an article on the subject. It's certainly not excessive to suggest that a country of nearly 80 million people might have a fifth tier which is notable in itself, even if all of the teams at that level aren't. The big problem is a lack of English-speaking editors familiar with the subject.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 14:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Does anyone know any Turkish-speaking editors? In its
current state it cannot be considered notable, I'm afraid. If some sources/notability can be found then I'd be more than happy to reconsider my viewpoint on the matter.
GiantSnowman 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The notability of a subject is not predicated on the current quality of its article. While editorial discretion may support a merge in the short term simply to improve the average quality of our coverage of the subject, that's orthogonal to discussion of the subject's notability. That's important to establish in case an editor subsequently comes along to improve the article and a well-meaning editor party to this AfD goes and speedies it as G4.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 15:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Update - I have undertaken a quick update that should now meet
WP:GNG. (
League Octopus (League Octopus 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC))reply
Nice that you added 143 football clubs (of which is about 90% redlinked), but the participating clubs don't make the league noteworthy.
Night of the Big Windtalk 16:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - the subject is just simply not notable.
Adam4267 (
talk) 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep The clubs themselves may not be notable, and certainly not the players, but it seems to me rather bizarre that a fifth level league in a country where football is as important as Turkey could be deemed not notable. And
169,000 Ghits suggest this is the case. Plus
WP:FOOTYN is not a valid reason for deleting as it's an essay and has never been accepted as a policy or guideline.
Number57 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with Number 57 that
WP:FOOTYN is just an essay. However, the article in its current state reference-wise doesn't satisfy
WP:N, which I think is the main issue. –
Kosm1fent 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Notability does not depend on the current state of the article, but on the sources that exist. I provided a link to thousands of such sources above.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
They include major newspapers such as
Milliyet and
Hürriyet, as you would have seen if you had bothered to actually look.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - Clearly notable as per
WP:GNG/
WP:N. There are enough reliable sources with regards to the topic to warrant keeping the article, see Phil Bridger's comment. Also, the nom stating that this league does not meet
WP:FOOTYN is wrong since the article clearly meets
WP:N. We are talking about the league here, not the clubs involved or the players involved! Straighforward KEEP !
TonyStarks (
talk) 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think, as the fifth tier football league in Turkey, it satisfies
WP:N and the article can be improved more. Besides, I added League Status and two references from Turkish major news websites.
Hcagri (
talk) 09:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's clear from the google results linked above that sufficient coverage of this league exists to pass WP:N. Obviously it would be better if more of the information contained in those results were incorporated in the article, but that's a problem inherent in writing articles on the English Wikipedia about subjects (in any field, not just sports) with little English-language coverage. It's an argument for improvement, not deletion. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk) 09:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy close as keep Reluctandly, as I am still not really convinced about the notability of an amateur league. But the article is now better sourced and it seems that even more sources are on his way. I give it the benefit of the doubt and reuqest speedy close as keep.
Night of the Big Windtalk 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)as said before, I'm not Don Quixotereply
Unfortunately, as there are five delete !votes, that can't be done, the AfD will have to run its course..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 20:55, 22 March 2012 (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.