Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Regional Amateur League

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). Cloudz 679 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Regional Amateur League

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

Amateur league. Fails

_talk 21:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:27, 15 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. Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 13:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here worth keeping. $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
~~WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 15 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.
Wanderer 00:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. So the whole fifth level of football in Turkey is unnotable according to
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I don't consider those leagues and teams notable, but I am not
_talk 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This appears to be the fifth tier of the
Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply
]

Comment. This League contains teams such as
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.
_talk 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The underlying issue here is that so few clubs (72) are allowed to enter the
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"...
_talk 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. Giant Snowman 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.
_talk 16:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed - a list of redlinks does not inspire confidence that the league is notable. However, after a tip-off from
talk · contribs)) to help search for sources/notability. Giant Snowman 17:08, 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. Number 5 7 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with Number 57 that
WP:N, which I think is the main issue. – Kosm1 fent 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
]

Well, yes. Are they considered reliable?
Quality prevails over quantity, you see. – Kosm1 fent 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

They include major newspapers such as
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Clearly notable as per
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.
_talk 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)as said before, I'm not Don Quixote[reply
]
- 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]

Keep per
(talk)_(contribs) 19:20, 25 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.