Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphense Boys

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.

Alphense Boys

Alphense Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A lower tier amateur football club in the Nederlands. No evidence of any notability, and clubs at this level have no inherent notability. An attempt at making this a redirect was thwarted, hence this AfD. Fails

Before this discussion is closed. Below and in the article, I have proven that Alphense Boys easily meets the

VV Montfoort that was unjustifiably deleted while it participated in the very same game. It is also notable by GNG and ORG and also exactly by the very same rule (FOOTYN) and highest level national soccer event. Furthermore, VV Montfoort has additional National Cup appearances and continued to additional rounds in this case. For Alphense Boys this was a rare first for a club at this level. This has to do with its "colorful" past that makes it extra well covered in the national, regional, and soccer press. gidonb (talk

)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - possible search term but non-notable. GiantSnowman 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per below source showing they played in national cup, meeting standard club notability requirements. GiantSnowman 17:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes
  FOOTYN, has played in a national competition, namely 2011–12 KNVB Cup. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per national cup appearance. @GiantSnowman: do you want to reconsider? Number 57 10:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's nowhere this could be merged as a middle ground solution? There doesn't seem likely to be enough
  WP:Policy, meaning it has no more weight as policy direction than we would put on any one contributor's !vote in a discussion. And I doubt that national cup provision would survive community scrutiny, honestly, if you crunch the numbers and think about just how many non-notable clubs, completely uncovered by reliable sources, would then qualify for articles. However, aggregating such clubs into a handful of parent articles might be a solution you could get a fair number of editors around, though it would require some post-AfD legwork and coordination. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of them from a brief search on Google News.
    WP:AFDP – I can't recall an AfD on a club that passed this threshold being deleted in the past 10 years, and there have been a lot of AfDs on the subject. Number 57 22:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Fenix down and Number 57: do you have a source for the KNVB Cup appearance? I had a trawl through Socerway and couldn't see it? GiantSnowman 06:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GiantSnowman: RSSSF confirms the 2011*12 appearance. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets
  snowball and speedy keep. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Nominator says he AfDd this article after changing it into a redirect was reverted! The redirect was reverted because clearly notable subjects should not be redirected out of the blue to other articles. That's plain vandalism. Subsequently AfDing such articles does not make the situation any better. It communicates a lack of respect for community conventions and a lack of research before deletion procedures. There's a long history of attempts to delete Hoofdklasse clubs from Wikipedia. All have failed. Recently one was closed as speedy keep after a clear snowball. Situation here is similar. Not one person approved this nomination! gidonb (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Especially ridiculous is the claim fails GNG without providing any detail how. Club has almost 100 years of significant coverage in the media, including in all out of all general national newspapers. Did nominator even bother to take a look at these? I wonder! gidonb (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a quick peek together:

Alphense Boys in national daily newspapers:

• NRC Handelsblad
• Trouw
• De Telegraaf
• De Volkskrant
• Algemeen Dagblad
• Nederlands Dagblad

Alphense Boys in just a few major soccer news sources of the Netherlands

• Voetbal International
• Voetbal in de Bollenstreek
• Regio Voetbal

This does not yet include the historic articles in national newspapers, almost all accessible through delpher.nl, all broadcasters, all major regional newspapers through their websites and delpher, and local newspapers, accessible through their websites and regional historic databases. The idea that there would be a football club in the Hoofdklasse that does not meet the

WP:GNG comes through as not very serious. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per most of above. ClubOranje^T 07:08, 7 August 2017 (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.