Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Subs

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. Daniel Bryant 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Subs

No evidence that the club meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only references provided are two external jumps, neither of which mentions the club; one provides contact details for the sports centre at which the club is based, and the other is a customer testimonial by one team member on an entirely unrelated site. A proposed deletion template expressing concerns about notability has been removed, as have Notability and Unreferenced templates, without any evidence of notability being provided. EALacey 08:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence would you like? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that it is untrue? It's not like theres video tapes of everything. What is it your wanting to allow this article to remain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 March 2007.
- Comment Nobody is claiming the article is untrue, but truth is not the sole requirement for an article existing. You need to add reliable sources to the article that prove that a) the club exists and b) the club meets notability requirements. Have a read of WP:ATT for further details ChrisTheDude 10:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), to qualify as notable an organisation must have been the subject of independent reliable sources. The article provides no evidence that this has been the case. In fact, the references provided are insufficient to establish that the club even exists. Your request for evidence that the article is untrue is irrelevant; as described at Wikipedia:Attribution: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In any case, establishing the accuracy of the current article would not demonstrate notability. EALacey 10:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence would you like? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that it is untrue? It's not like theres video tapes of everything. What is it your wanting to allow this article to remain? The both links serve a purpose to prove that both player and competition actually exist. Secondly, the player link also allows the reader to acknowledge the player's background, showing the type of lifestyle he lives. We could put up a team photo....a video....just because they dont have a website doesn't make it not credible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Neither link proves anything relating to this team. The first one proves that a particular sports centre exists, it doesn't say anything about this team playing there. The second link proves that someone with a name matching one of the players was very impressed with the services of some bank, that doesn't prove anything about this team, which is the subject of the article. If you read the policy I directed you to above, you will see that an article needs to show evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources of the actual subject of the article. If this isn't possible then the article doesn't meet WP guidelines. Hope this helps ChrisTheDude 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not operate at a sufficiently notable league level. MLA 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent time trying to find these sites to prove the existence and i have referenced them.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
- Comment You can't just delete the entire contents of an AfD page, that constitutes VANDALISM. Also none of the new links constitute a reliable source, especially not one with "cock n balls" in the URL. See WP:What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable? ChrisTheDude 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club seems non-notable, no evidence of notability provided. Qwghlm 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. It's an indoor soccer club, guys. No wonder there is no substantial external coverage in reliable sources! Does anyone other than its members even know of its existence? Probably not: User:Tal1988 is certainly the founder. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually quite a large fanbase. As we are in Melbourne's top division for free age Indoor soccer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
- .....unfortunately that doesn't seem to have translated into any form of independent coverage, which is required per WP:ATT ChrisTheDude 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Tal1988 just vandalised my user page with a personal attack. Tal, I'm trying to be helpful here by directing you to policies the reading of which might be able to help get your article up to the required standard. I think you need to grow up a bit ChrisTheDude 12:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for my act of immaturity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)

Delete Non notable. Tangerines 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, and a red card to the author for vandalizing user pages. Realkyhick 04:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-professional club for U students?! Matthew_hk t c 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to prove that we play, and that we do work as a team for the community, would that make the page valid? Danielrychter1 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from myself above, "an article needs to show evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources". If this evidence can be provided then the article meets WP guidelines, if not then it doesn't. Merely existing is not grounds for an article ChrisTheDude 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this club does not appear to be notable enough for wikipedia. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Absolutly no grounds for it to be kept, just because somthing can be proved to exist does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It has to go.--Greatestrowerever 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rightio, since you believe it can't be proven, then delete the article on wikipedia for "God". God cannot be proven to exist. So if something established, thats proven to exist, cannot be on the site, then how can something so unsubstantiated be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 March 2007.
- The God article does not make any claim about God's existence, but merely reports what philosophers and theologians have said on the topic. In any case, as numerous editors have pointed out, existence does not equate to notability. Whether or not God exists, the topic of "God" has been the subject of non-trivial published works. That does not apply to Yellow Subs. EALacey 07:46, 31 March 2007 (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.