Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football clubs on social media

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. Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football clubs on social media

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

The article has multiple issues including being entirely unsourced. Others include

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is also the problem that the places will change daily and there is no way to keep the info in the article accurate. MarnetteD|Talk 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. This is completely unsourced, and somewhat random. Who determines what is a "major social media page"? Why only association football when the title is the generic "football"? And why not include all sports? The range increases by a factor of two (above 500,000 to above 1,000,000), then increases by a factor of five (to 5,000,000), then increases by a factor of two (10,000,000), then increases by a factor of five (above 50,000,000) - why? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced and, to be honest, no indication whatsoever of why this information is noteworthy or encyclopedic..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, arbitrary selection of "major social media," and no real indication of encyclopedic value. Per nominator, we also have to look at
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Also completely unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate, unclear, not an encyclopaedia article by any stretch Spiderone 12:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates
WP:OR as well with too many other issues to mention. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete violates
WP:NOR. Nfitz (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can probably list clubs who were missed out by the author. Original Research, deserves deletion. Jupitus Smart 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 1 March 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.