Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Aaigem

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 Consensus is to userfy all. Note that userfication cannot be permanent: if they are not salvageable in a reasonable amount of time, they must be deleted. I will move them to userspace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK Aaigem

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a Belgian club which never played above the country's provincial leagues or for the Belgian Cup. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN.", and according to what I've (not) seen, it's still valid. PROD was contested by Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) by saying "article creator is isn't (corrected as Wesley Mouse told me afterwards that it was a mistake) aware of adding new refs but is new to all this, so being taught what to do", which doesn't show why the club is considered notable.

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following articles:

The only possible claim of notability for SK Aaigem and FC Mere so far is this news article about a proposed merger between KRC Bambrugge, KFC Olympic Burst, SK Aaigem and FC Mere. However, this article alone doesn't consist "significant coverage", so Aaigem's and Mere's notability claims need to be reinforced by more independent reliable sources. The remaining nominated articles don't show any media coverage besides self-published sources, so they easily fail GNG. – Kosm1 fent 17:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to point out that the user above has just gone and misquoted what I actually said. I never used the phrase "article creator is aware of adding new refs but is new to all this, so being taught what to do". My actual words are "the new user wasn't aware how to add refs, and that the refs are on Cooper's page." Kosm1fent advised me to remove the prods and add the refs on behalf of the user, to which I have done. All the articles have a minimum of 3 refs from various Belgian Newsites. And there are more sources, (news, books, and independent) to come which will add weight to WP:N, but I have a feeling the new user will supply them via CT Cooper's talk page again. As the article's creator is new to Wikipedia, I personally fee there is a large amount of underhandedness going on. Especially when I get told to remove the PRODs and the user will wait to see these sources before making a decision. And it is very clear the user went against his own advice to myself by going straight to AFD before allowing the refs to be added. Wesley☀Mouse 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I oppose deletion of all articles listed in this nomination. At first, yes the articles only had one source, and even I told CT Cooper (talk · contribs) that I had concerns regarding this. Klodde (talk · contribs) provided additional sources via CT Cooper's talk page, as Klodde is new and didn't know how to add them to articles. Both Cooper and myself offered to help, with Cooper doing copy-editing on the articles to improve their style, and I added all the new sources. As the user who created these is new, then there could be a case of providing him with advice on how to improve the articles, and allow him the opportunity to do that. If after a period of time the articles haven't improved, then perhaps re-submission of AFD could be considered. Wesley☀Mouse 16:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Klodde (talk · contribs) has requested on my user talk page that this AfD be re-listed to allow him to consolidate more sources. CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to have missed the obvious solution here: userfy them, so Klodde can finish them without fear of deletion. I think it needs to emphasized the Klodde is a new user who has found sources to add to the article and is trying to find more. Deleting this out of hand will not help the encyclopaedia nor improve editor retention problems. CT Cooper · talk 12:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, there is no evidence these clubs are notable. Giant Snowman 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. These are cases of WP:TOOSOON, but with Wesley asserting he can gather more sources, I'm good for a userfy rather than a deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd agree with userification of the articles, however I'm not very optimistic that sources will be found to justify GNG. – Kosm1 fent 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I never even heard of that term until now. Sounds like a reasonable solution to all this, and also allows the user time to learn the dos and don't's about article creating, which I'm sure someone would be willing to teach Klodde. Wesley☀Mouse 11:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - We don't want to scare away new editors. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 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.