From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

CS Auxerre Lugoj

CS Auxerre Lugoj (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under either GNG or NSports. Of the two sources, one is a dead link and appears it was a list. The other is just a list where they are an entry. Previously deleted. North8000 ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

How is that relevant to WP:GNG? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Who says so? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been newly added content since this article's nomination. Instead of considering this club's reputation, if we could have some source analysis, it might help close this divided discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Which sources confirm this? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Check the 2006-07 Liga II season. AdrianCioran 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough of a history in the second division and as something of a feeder club to justify an article of its own. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing to pass the WP:GNG. The keep argument appears to be that the club at its peak reach the second division of Romanian football. This is not in and of itself a showing of notability, and seems to harken back to the NFOOTY days when we tried to assess full professional leagues before the practice was deprecated. The sources present in the article (assuming Google translated them accurately) indicate: (Source 1) The team was founded in 1936, played many years in lower leagues and merged with a another club in 2005. It never reached Division A, but did play for promotion in 2002; they lost. (Source 2) Database listing team standings/match results for 2004/5 season, with no reporting, history or analysis of the team. (Source 3) List of division standings for 2005-6 season (Source 4) What appears to be a newspaper style game story stating that the team lost to another team that was formed 48 hours prior to the match and was missing 5 starters. The story does state that 1500 spectators paid to watch the match, and does engage in some analysis about lack of support and funding for the team affecting their ability to play. (Source 5) List of division standings for 2006-7 season. On their face, sources 2, 3, and 5 count nothing for notability. Source 1 is a 3 sentence capsule summary for a "where are they now" article, and does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Source 4 potentially could count if the source itself is reliable and independent, which I really cannot assess. Since, at best, there is 1 good source for notability, the article should be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xymmax Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

CS Auxerre Lugoj

CS Auxerre Lugoj (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under either GNG or NSports. Of the two sources, one is a dead link and appears it was a list. The other is just a list where they are an entry. Previously deleted. North8000 ( talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

How is that relevant to WP:GNG? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Who says so? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been newly added content since this article's nomination. Instead of considering this club's reputation, if we could have some source analysis, it might help close this divided discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Which sources confirm this? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Check the 2006-07 Liga II season. AdrianCioran 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough of a history in the second division and as something of a feeder club to justify an article of its own. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing to pass the WP:GNG. The keep argument appears to be that the club at its peak reach the second division of Romanian football. This is not in and of itself a showing of notability, and seems to harken back to the NFOOTY days when we tried to assess full professional leagues before the practice was deprecated. The sources present in the article (assuming Google translated them accurately) indicate: (Source 1) The team was founded in 1936, played many years in lower leagues and merged with a another club in 2005. It never reached Division A, but did play for promotion in 2002; they lost. (Source 2) Database listing team standings/match results for 2004/5 season, with no reporting, history or analysis of the team. (Source 3) List of division standings for 2005-6 season (Source 4) What appears to be a newspaper style game story stating that the team lost to another team that was formed 48 hours prior to the match and was missing 5 starters. The story does state that 1500 spectators paid to watch the match, and does engage in some analysis about lack of support and funding for the team affecting their ability to play. (Source 5) List of division standings for 2006-7 season. On their face, sources 2, 3, and 5 count nothing for notability. Source 1 is a 3 sentence capsule summary for a "where are they now" article, and does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Source 4 potentially could count if the source itself is reliable and independent, which I really cannot assess. Since, at best, there is 1 good source for notability, the article should be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xymmax Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook