Talk:Bengaluru FC/Archive 1

Richard Hood
The question that remains to be answered is that whether this Facebook page is the Official Page of the club or not. If yes, where can we find a link for the same? Shovon (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that when I checked the link. I think Bengaluru FC controls that page or perhaps recognizes it because I went to the actual Bengaluru FC page and clicked the picture there for the source. It must have redirected to the fans page. Just a bit of confusion there. I should have been more attentive. Sorry. Here is the official source . Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Updating the history section
Bengaluru_FC is very out of date, doesn't include recent I-League, nor Federation cup performance. How do we want to go about it? Include every match of the season briefly like it's been done so far? Nadesai (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just bought this back as I do believe this is important. The purpose for the history section on the main page is to only include the main events. The small, match-by-match info/news can go on the 2013-14 page but main events like Bengaluru FC's first I-League match, their first win, their first Fed Cup game, their first Fed Cup result can come on this page. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bengaluru FC vs Bengaluru F.C.
I have noticed that most of the clubs are named like F.C., including Indian and European clubs. Should we move this page to "Bengaluru F.C." ? Would be a good job for anyone who is expert at using WP:AWB or other bot which can change all the references to the page as well. Coderzombie (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

2014-15 kit
Can anyone update the kit which looks like this now? Coderzombie (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bengaluru FC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203033708/http://i-league.org/?p=7088 to http://i-league.org/?p=7088
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222163120/http://bengalurufc.com/detailclubnews.php?id=222 to http://bengalurufc.com/detailclubnews.php?id=222

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bengaluru FC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.kickoffindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599%3Adodsal-fc-might-get-a-direct-entry-in-next-years-i-league&catid=42%3Arokstories
 * Added tag to http://www.kickoffindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1078%3Aindian-football-transfer-gossip-thoi-singh-to-shift-his-base-from-mumbai-tigers-to-jsw-bangalore-malswamtulunga-set-to-join-hands-with-east-bengal&catid=39%3Aplayer-blogs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020034518/http://i-league.org/?p=7070 to http://i-league.org/?p=7070
 * Added tag to http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-11-26/i-league/44486099_1_bengaluru-fc-beikhokhei-beingaichho-salgaocar-fc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * The following is a closed discussion of a merge request. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not to merge. This has been open for nearly five months and there seems no consensus to merge. Eagleash (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

West Block Blues went through a very limited AfD without thought for merging the small content in Bengaluru FC. I would have suggested merge and redirect given the chance. So here is the chance. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bengaluru FC as a possible search term, not independently notable and the existing references isnt enough to justify a stand alone article. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - plenty of sources in the article itself and at the AfD indicate that they are an independently notable supporters group. The AfD was open for two weeks and no significant arguments were put forward as to why they weren't notable. Akhiljaxxn' s comments are demonstrably not true from the afd and the article itself. Govvy, the AfD is done. Unless there is overwhelming consensus for a merge here, any attempt to do so will be viewed as disruptive editing and punished with blocks. Fenix down (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples of significant independent coverage already noted in the article and the AfD:
 * thefield
 * Marca
 * sportskeeda
 * Scoopwhoop
 * Times of India
 * goal.com
 * Plenty of in depth coverage in multiple sour as including national and international media outlets. Yes the article needs expanding but is clearly independently notable. Fenix down (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why you want a small stub article to remain a small stub article about supporters of a club, there is plenty of room to add supporters section here on this article. Govvy (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ASZ. To my mind, as I made perfectly clear in my closing rationale and above, there is sufficient significant independent coverage in multiple sources to indicate GNG. The current size of an article is utterly irrelevant when considering whether a subject is notable. Plenty of additional information was raised in the AfD, marrying this article and then expanding the section to cover all of it would lead to excessive focus on this group amongst other supporters groups and this article as a whole. Fenix down (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But you closed the AfD while I was in the middle of writing my thoughts after reviewing it, only with in the short time period it was added to the Footy project afd list, I expressed my concern that you gave no time for a few more peoples thoughts on the subject, now you threaten me, telling me I am disruptive and you're going to ban me? Fenix, take a break from wiki please, go and calm down. Also please don't close this, leave it to another admin otherwise I will consider you disruptive. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the final time, the AfD had been open for two weeks, sufficient sources had been presented to show GNG. The fact that it had only recently been added to the wp:footy list is irrelevant after that time. Your merge view would not have changed my mind. I'm not sure why you can't accept this, just because you had only just seen it doesn't mean it should stay open. Please don't tell other editors to stop editing simply because they disagree with you. I obviously won't close this as I am an active participant. The fact that you immediately tried another means of getting your way after an AfD had been closed means I was well within my rights to warn you of the consequences of trying to railroad a decision to your view. Fenix down (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - probably (just!) merits a separate article. GiantSnowman 10:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Question How many separate article pages are there for supporters in English football clubs and you want to do this for a football club that is only four years old? It hasn't been established that long and already you're dividing it up into small little articles? There isn't even a section on this article about the supporters and it's been asigned to a separate article. Some common sense is in order ppl. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the notability of other supporters clubs in any way relevant to this discussion? Or the age of the group? Or the fact that there wasnt a section in the club article? I agree with you that in general such groups are not notable, and in no way should the outcome of any discussions here influence the notability of other fan groups, but this is a group that does seem to be getting some significant coverage as has been noted now several times. Im also not sure why you are continuing to bang on about the size of the article when you have alreadu been asked to read WP:ASZ. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know about that and I disagree with your assessment. I don't think it merits a separate article from it's main subject, generally when articles get to big you can look at splitting them up into smaller articles. But as of right now, you seem intent that one paragraph and I mean one paragraph about the supporters of a football club merits it's own article. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, please for the final time read WP:ASZ. It doesn't matter how long and article is if the subject is notable. Please also reread the AfD, the discussion highlighted a number of additional sources which supported GNG and can be used to expand the article. There might be only a short article now, but clearly can be expanded to size that would be unduly weighty in the main club article. Fenix down (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:COMMON. It using common-sense which is what is needed here over ANZ. :/ Govvy (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're just going round in circles here. If you can't accept that the 6 sources above are sufficient for GNG and that the other ten or so sources with briefer mentions will enable the creation of an article of significant length then we're not going to make any progress. Let's just see if there's any other input on this now this discussion is entering it's third week. Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fenix down.Has enough sources for a separate article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , you called the AFD "very limited". I am not sure what you meant by that.  The obvious first step, when one finds an AFD closure confusing, or at odds with one's understanding of policy, is to leave a civil question, or questions, on the user talk page of the administrator who closed the discussion.  Note: this is what the page for requesting overturning AFD closures recommends.  Some administrators respond very helpfully.  Some merely give a laconic link, or links, to the policies they think are most relevant to the closure.  Sadly, some administrators aren't helpful, although I think policy do obligate them to try to be helpful, and either don't respond, or take your question to the fora for overturning an AFD.  So, did you try this first?  If you didn't may I request you always make this the first thing to do when you have concerns over an AFD?  I just checked.  You did initiate a discussion on User talk:Fenix down .  But you didn't offer any policy-based questions about the closure, nor does it seem to me that you offered any policy-based concerns.  Three different contributors offered thoughtful opinions.  The discussion was relisted.  So now I am really perplexed as to what you meant when you called the AFD "very limited".  Do people ever initiate a second AFD, shortly after a first AFD closed as KEEP, or NO-CONSENSUS?  Sometimes.  Rarely.  And it is even more rare for those AFD to be well received.  Nominators who can't offer a new argument for deletion, not offered in the recently closed AFD can expect grumpy suggestions to shape up, and do a better job.  For what it is worth, I thought your notes on the closing administrator's talk page were too confrontational.  Administrators are fallible.  We are all fallible.  But general civility should oblige you to have approached them with the civility of someone who is aware that they are the fallible party, and that your questions arose from you overlooking some elements of policy. You claimed WP:COMMON, but everyone has differing opinions on what common sense requires.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * wow, I have nothing to say to you other than I find you very offensive and rude. Leave me alone thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For reasons said above. I think there is enough info on the internet to make this page similar to Emerald City Supporters. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ArsenalFan700 This page looks similar to Manjappada in content base but you find there is not enough info but here yes .This is a sure case of double standard.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Look into the West Block Blues beyond just their engagement with Bengaluru FC in league play. They are involved in a lot more ways and have contributed as a fan base for Asian competition and even the national team. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ArsenalFan700 manjappada not involved as a fan base for asian competion.i agree with you but their team didnt competed in asian level.but their support was immense and more bigger than wbb during their league matches as well as India's national matches since their inception    .Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Passing GNG doesn't mean it should be independant of it's main subject, especially when it's largely connected to Bengaluru FC. There is plenty of room on Bengaluru FC article to include both instead of having a one paragaphy article pushed off into it's own article!! Govvy (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Passing GNG doesn't mean it should get an article? If it passes GNG it passes GNG, simple as that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.