Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chattahooligans


 * 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   merge to Chattanooga FC. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Chattahooligans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't find this fan group (not even an actual organization) to be notable. Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The only detailed coverage I found about them was one story by a local TV station. Could be merged/redirected to Chattanooga FC. MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete reviewing all the sources listed in this article, it just seems to be have a quick mention of the fan group. I agree that it would be ideal to merge the content into a shorter summary of the group at Chattanooga FC. ///Euro Car  GT  20:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Delete and merge" isn't an option because of our licensing terms. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't want the redirect to remain in place.  As such, I think maybe you didn't realize voting "merge" is an option? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chattanooga FC as a possible search term, not independently notable. GiantSnowman 23:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete 2 secondary sources both local one newspaper one television. Not notable, could use the references to create a Chattahooligans sections in Chattanooga FC but the subject is not encyclopedic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chattanooga FC - there are certainly sources like this one but not really enough to have an article on its own. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chattanooga FC. One could maybe make an argument that the group is technically notable, but it makes much more sense to cover the stuff that can be reliably sourced at the FC page.  (There is material worth merging, so simply redirecting would be be appropriate.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (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.