Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FC de Rakt

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable club only claim is publicity stunt were team wore mini skirts. BigDunc Talk 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point - it wasn't a publicity stunt and they still wear them now. It was also very notable for being reported around the world. ðarkun coll 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Step 2 of this AfD was not done correctly. I have corrected it to add the heading. No opinion on deletion. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. It fails WP:N as there is a lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GiantSnowman 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For an article to be AfDed a mere sixteen minutes after it is started, I'd expect for there to have been no attempt to establish notability in the page. This article has international news sources as references. That the team may not be noteworthy in a sporting sense does not necessarily preclude them from being notable as an organisation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your keep doesn't make sense on one hand you are saying they are not notable (probably) and the other hand they are (probably), the link to reuters is only covering the publicity stunt were they wore skirts not on the notability of the football club which is the criteria that this article should be based on. Also I don't see how waiting for a set time is going to make this club notable apart from wearing skirts. BigDunc  Talk 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A club doesn't have to be notable because of their sporting ability, they can be notable generally, which this article might be. Just by googling (the last one swedish). chandler · 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All the links are for the club wearing skirts this is a news story of course it will get coverage but the club are not notable sporting wise. BigDunc  Talk 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which doesnt matter, it's general notabilty. chandler · 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So take out the coverage of the skirts being worn and tell me how this is a notable footbal club, which this article is about. BigDunc  Talk 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't notable as a football club. However, they are notable for another reason. Gary Dahl is not a notable advertising executive, but he's still notable (for having invented the Pet Rock). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His article is about him as an inventor not an advertising exec. This is about a football club not a skirt wearing team. BigDunc  Talk 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, you're wrong here. Articles are about subjects in their entirety - they are not pigeon-holed into being about some specific aspect of the subject, or written from the point of view of some specific role the subject has taken. We do not have "articles about football clubs" - we just have articles. If an entity is more famous for one aspect than another, then its article should lend that aspect greater weight. It seems you're approaching this from the point of view that because football clubs fall under the purview of the football WikiProject that it has to meet that project's inclusion criteria. But WikiProjects are simply ways for users to collaborate; they do not control articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm the author of the article so I'll just add my vote here. And I'll further add that a sports club may indeed be notable for reasons other than its sporting success. Notability is not restricted to a certain field. ðarkun coll 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, reading the generally notability guidelines for organisations, it comes down to whether the coverage of the organisation in the multiple reliable sources is "significant". As the coverage basically adds up to reporting on a successful publicity stunt, I'd say the coverage isn't "significant" so I'm suggesting Delete - fchd (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people may indeed view it as a publicity stunt, but both the club chairman and team captain say that it isn't, and explain precisely why they did it. They also say that interest has been shown by other clubs. Many would see this as a significant development in the women's game. ðarkun coll 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability for a football team is in playing football. DGG (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE is supplemental to WP:N, not a replacement. If a club has received significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources it need never have played a match. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE but this is an article about a football team take away the wearing of skirts and would this article still get your support. All the sources deal with the wearing of skirts and the team are incidental. This is one news item and wiki is not a newspaper. BigDunc  Talk 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's like saying take away the fact that Barak Obama is a politician and would he still get an article? Actually, if you check Google you will see that FC de Rakt gets well over 6000 results, only a small percetage of which are to do with the skirt issue.  ðarkun coll 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no point in having this article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The team may well set a trend in women's football, I think, that makes it notable. The article should actually be linked in the Kit (association football) article and some information added. EA210269 (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone show me a source that shows the notability of this football club without the publicity stunt of the wearing of skirts and reply to TharkunColl of course if Obama wasn't in politics there would be no article about him not really sure what you are getting at, it is his political career that makes him notable. BigDunc  Talk 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources clearly state - both the club chairman and the team captain - that it isn't just a publicity stunt. You may not believe them, but that's a value judgement and it's not our job as editors to make value judgements. Look at the photos on their website, they're still using that kit now - it really is their standard kit (the senior women's team is called FC de Rakt DA1 by the way, if you want to look it up). The same sources go on to state that other women's teams are showing a strong interest. Far from being a publicity stunt, this could be a new and significant trend. Because of this, the club is already notable, and doesn't need any other justification for an article. As it happens, however, this club is very large and has dozens of teams in various leagues, and has more than 6000 Google hits. ðarkun coll 12:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the second time you have used the 6000 google hits, here are 6200 google hits you are referring to I will look at the first page

So where are the sources that show the notability of this football club apart from the wearing of skirts? A one news story event is all that I can find. BigDunc Talk 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) first link is to the club website
 * 2) second a blog
 * 3) third covers skirt issue
 * 4) fourth a forum discussing the skirts
 * 5) fifth the wiki article we are discussing
 * 6) sixth is discussing the layout of the club website
 * 7) seventh and eight are YouTube videos one of kids playing football the other a day at the beach with obligatory arse flash,
 * 8) ninth is images of the skirts.
 * 9) And finally the tenth which is the YouTube video shown in the seventh link.
 * I don't see the argument of "If we don't count what they're notable for, how are they notable?", they don't qualify as notable as a football club, but probably as a general organization. chandler · 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedic article about a football team and I can't find anything that makes this a notable football club. They pull what I consider a publicity stunt, which got trivial coverage, where are the sources that make this a notable football club? It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. apart from the slight news coverage about the skirts I can find nothing notable about this club. BigDunc  Talk 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, it is entirely irrelevant if they are notable for their sporting achievements if they are notable otherwise. The general notability guideline supersedes any of the supplemental guidelines for organisations, people, sports clubs et cetera. The kits were changed in September and I'm still seeing current new results (albeit not in English) for the club. That indicates that there may be potential for improvement here, such that an AfD the day the article was created might be a bit premature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would that be so an AfD gives the page creator a further 5 days to add verifiable and reliable sources to the article now a speedy would have been a different matter, which is why I choose this option. And regard the GNG I dont see how the sources provided  ...address the subject directly in detail' in fact the sources cover one event which is the wearing of skirts which this article is not about. BigDunc  Talk 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We should be careful not to judge the women's game using the standard of the men's. And it's not just "one event" - they've been using that kit since September. As for improving the article, I would very much welcome input from Dutch editors of football articles, and indeed from anyone else. ðarkun coll 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this article not about the club as a whole did you not say the womens team were called FC de Rakt DA1? BigDunc  Talk 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The women's team play under the name FC de Rakt - the DA1 designation is simply to differentiate them from the club's other teams. They are all listed on the website. ðarkun coll 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So is this article is about the club as a whole? BigDunc  Talk 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The club is notable because of its women's team. The distinction you're trying to draw is somewhat artificial - I see no need to rename the article "FC de Rakt DA1" for example, since the women's team, obviously, are part of the club. DA1 is simply an internal designation - the other teams have them too. The name of the team is FC de Rakt. ðarkun coll 17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I might be wrong on this so correct me if I am from the home page of this club it looks to me that they have 20 teams, and the only notable thing about the club as a whole is that one of it's teams wear skirts. As I have asked before were are the reliable, independent and verifiable sources that bestow notability to this club and not just trivial coverage of one of it's 20 teams. This article is about the club not 1 of its teams. BigDunc Talk 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's about both the club, and the fact that its women's team wear skirts. This is the very thing that makes the club notable (some might argue that such a large club with 20 teams is notable anyway - but that's not really the issue here). What you're asking, in effect is other than the fact that the women's team are internationally famous for wearing skirts - and indeed, are apparently the first to do so - what makes this club notable? Well, since you queried it earlier, I'll respond by asking this - other than the fact that Barak Obama is a politician and President of the United States, what makes him notable? You seem to want to exclude the very thing that makes this club notable, in order to say it isn't notable. Apart from the news coverage of Manchester United's men's first team, what makes that club notable? And it hardly needs pointing out that hundreds of items of news coverage from all round the world, as FC de Rakt has got, most certainly isn't "trivial". ðarkun coll 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes Man Utd notable well read the notability guidelines they satisfy them all, then look at this football team they don't satisfy the notability guidelines especially WP:NOBJ one news story about the girls team of this club doesn't make this club notable. BigDunc  Talk 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do satisfy them. That's the whole point. And you rather missed the point about Man U too - what I said was - apart from what makes them notable, in what way are they notable? This is precisely what you're trying to impose on this article. I'll also add here that your last sentence could be read to imply that you regard the "girls" team as somehow inferior to the men's team. ðarkun coll 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No that is not what I am doing what I am saying is a trivial news event that covered the girls team of this club doesn't make this club notable. BigDunc  Talk 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant notability as a football team. The fact the players wear skirts is completely irrelevant, one single and trivial fact hardly makes a subject notable. --Angelo (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It has already been pointed out that WP:Notability outweighs notability purely in terms of football. But having said this, the team is notable in the footballing world - not for its sporting success, but for the very issue that is under discussion here - namely, the skirts. ðarkun coll 10:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it WP:N states, Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story and Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. BigDunc  Talk 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a single event - they're still wearing them now. ðarkun coll 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a single event/topic, they are wearing skirts thats all the coverage in the sources states one topic. BigDunc  Talk 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And a very notable one too. ðarkun coll 12:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying, I just can't for the life of me see how it is notable. It's a gimmick, if it catches on it merits a word or two in the Kit article. The club, however, appear to be completely non-notable, none of the coverage covers the club itself in any detail whatsoever. Still Delete, and etting close to Strong Delete. - fchd (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The club chairman and team captain deny it's a gimmick, and it's not our job to call them liars. ðarkun coll 12:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not exactly independent and/or reliable though, are they? - fchd (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If anyone doubts that the women's team is by far the most famous team of all the teams run by FC de Rakt, do a search at Google Images under "fc de rakt" - there are pages and pages of photos, all of the women's team playing all sorts of different fixtures (i.e. not simply from the news report in September). In the first six pages I only found one photo of the men's team, all the rest being of the women's. This team is genuinely famous. I really hope there isn't a tendency among some to denigrate it as somehow second class because it happens to be the women's team. ðarkun coll 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The team isn't famous, the gimmick is. Where are the multiple reliable sources that cover the club, or indeed any of the teams in any depth? All coverage seems to be of the skirts issue. That, in my eyes, is a long way from making the club notable. - fchd (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep calling it a gimmick, but the sources say otherwise - so in other words, that's just your opinion. As for multiple sources, try doing a Google Advanced search, excluding the word "skirts". Of the 6200 or so hits for "fc de rakt", about 200 mention skirts. Demonstrably, therefore, what you just said about all coverage being of the skirts issue is incorrect. ðarkun coll 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - concerning notability. If, as some contend, FC de Rakt is not notable, then what about the following clubs, all of which have their own articles: Borrowash Victoria A.F.C., Eastwood Town F.C., Ilkeston Town F.C., Long Eaton United F.C., Matlock Town F.C.... all examples from the Midlands Regional Alliance, itself chosen more or less at random. How many of these clubs have received international press coverage for anything? Since Wikipedia has articles on all of these tiny, local, amateur clubs, and many, many more besides - surely FC de Rakt is more than notable enough to have one too. Incidentally, I'm currently in the process of improving and expanding the article - any and all help would be much appreciated. ðarkun coll 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall that wiki uses some kind of level for club notability I don't know how it works maybe someone from Wiki Football could explain, the first team listed above play at Level 10. BigDunc  Talk 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have copied my post to the project for some clarification. BigDunc  Talk 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only the reserve team of those clubs play in the Midlands Regional Alliance. All their first teams play higher up the English pyramid. "International" coverage is not necessary, it merely needs t be substantial. I have my doubts about some of the English lower-league clubs deserving of an article, but that's an argument for another day and place. Keep this discussion to FC de Rakt please. - fchd (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That other stuff exists is not a rationale for keeping an article. If the other articles mentioned don't meet the notability guidelines they should be improved or put up for AfD discussion as well, but they aren't a reason to keep an article that may or may not meet the criteria for inclusion. Camw (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I can see both sides on this one. It happened.  We can verify that.  But we don't know how important the fact that it happened is. If we're going to mention it on Wikipedia in any article, probably at the kit article, maybe at the Women's football article, we may as well have an article on the team, but I don't think that should bloat to include coverage of the team, results and so on, unless they are sourced from national newspaper articles. We should tell people what they need to know about this team, rather than everything we could possibly tell them.  Keep it short and simple, they're a Dutch team, they did this, they say they did it for this reason, they play in this league, this happened because of it.  Maybe review the situation periodically to see if consensus changes. It may be tomorrow's chip paper. This one falls into that gray area of Wikipedia policy, it can just about be justified to delete as to retain. My heart says keep, because we are here to inform. My head says delete, because we don't know whether to inform. I think I'll let my heart rule here, provided we avoid bloating the article.  Hiding T 12:43, 10 April 2009 (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.