Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baroda Football Academy


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Baroda Football Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable association football training program and team. The references show that its players play against other teams and receive news coverage. We knew that, and that is not significant coverage. Does not satisfy general notability. Sports notability and in particular association football notability does not refer specifically to teams or programs, but the team does not play at the fully professional level. Some of its graduates do play at the fully professional level, but that would only qualify if the coverage satisfied general notability, which it does not.

Article has been moved into draft space twice and moved back into article space twice, and it is time to take the article to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It plays in Indian Women's League that is the notability to be eligible to be on Wikipedia It is participating in the league for 2 years regularly but not getting much news coverage, that is not fault of the team to be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivsa008 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article suggests that it has passed WP:AfC. I'm guessing that is false? Spiderone  09:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  09:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment to User:Spiderone - The message on the article was incorrect. You are presumably referring to a template message that says that the article was created through AFC, and the reviewer is in the process of closing out the request.  Yes, the template message says that.  The template message is wrong.  It really means that the article was in draft space and was submitted for AFC review, and was then moved into article space.  This normally does not mean that it was accepted by a reviewer, because when a reviewer accepts the draft using the script, that tag is removed.  It normally means that it was moved by a Move command.  This was commonly done by the draft author, bypassing or ignoring AFC, or move-warring with a reviewer who had sent it to draft space.  Sometimes it was done by a neutral editor who is not a reviewer; in that case, it will be closed out normally.  In this case, it was moved to article space by the author, not by a reviewer, and the template message is wrong.  I think that the template message should be changed, but that is a different issue.  Does that answer your reasonable question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thanks. It looks like the author has draftified again while this discussion has taken place. Is the AfD still allowed to proceed now that the article is just a draft? Spiderone  16:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I would say not but this article creator hasn't been conducting actions that would seem to be in good faith so I'm not sure how the procedure relates to that. Given the historical data on this article it would seem it's been drafted and moved into article space multiple times, seemingly as the creator wants. That game could go on forever. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 16:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the discussion should continue until consensus is reached and that the article creator should follow the AfC process. It's actually a really beneficial process and it's such a shame that so many editors kick off when their articles get moved to draft. Spiderone  17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - In doing a diligent before search in accordance with WP:BEFORE I find no evidence this academy has received significant coverage by any reliable media outlets. Beyond the typical promotional pieces, instagram account or facebook there is little else. If there are professional players who attended and graduated from this academy then maybe a category is warranted. If there are articles on those players then the category can be added to those articles and a list will be auto-created from that. The academy, as it stands now, does not pass WP:GNG, shameful as that may be. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 15:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable; can find little if any, coverage. Eagleash (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has been moved to draft yet again despite an 'only warning' posted at the creator's talk page yesterday. I have brought it to the attention of the Admin. who restored it previously and who also left the warning. Eagleash (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Once a deletion discussion is started, it normally runs for seven days, and moving or blanking it after the discussion is in progress is considered disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Wikipedia community (which we are) and the closer can decide to move an article to draft space. Deleting an article does not (normally) preclude re-creating the article in draft space.  I, personally, have no objection to the article being draftified.  This started because the author was moving the article from draft space to article space when it was not ready for article space.  The author could have proposed to create the article in draft space (except that they have now been blocked).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, returning it (twice) to draft after an AfD has been started is disruptive and has led to the creator being blocked, as noted. Eagleash (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.