Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fangio (cycling team)


 * 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 keep. There is consensus that the team is notable. Whether it should be merged and, if so, under what name does not require a 3rd relist since the prior two generated no incremental input. Star  Mississippi  16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Fangio (cycling team)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

insufficiently notable ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 00:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cycling,  and Belgium.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The team was notable it rode in a grand tour at the highest level of cycling. Which as stated in WikiProject Cycling/Notability "All teams that have raced in the highest level of cycling" or as stated in WikiProject_Cycling/Consensus_decisions 'Men's road: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd tier" therefore the team has been deemed as notable so the page should be kept. Paulpat99 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NCYC per above. Nom clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into AD Renting (cycling team), for example under the combined name of Fangio-ADR or AD Renting-Fangio. The combined name is less of a priority than the merge. Open to all options. Even AD Renting with Fangio in the history. The dab for AD Renting makes no sense anyway. (A company existed for which we do not have an article. Not sure the company would even be notable.) Examining the other opinions thus far, the problem is NOT NOTABILITY (the focus of all opinions above me) but an incorrect organization of information, for example by WP:SPINOFF or WP:SPINOUT. Hence, there is no intrinsic problem with the arguments made above, only with their conclusion, as additional considerations should have been made. gidonb (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is considered a separate team per all sources, despite the confusing history, so I think it is technically a separate team. Either way that should be a separate discussion, as the nom is only concerned with notability, despite providing no evidence for their case, so we should close this AfD and potentially discuss this further elsewhere. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ever since AfD became a discussion rather than deletion procedure, raising merge preferences is totally legitimate. One team did continue the other. Note also that the writeup for the currently AfDd team is small. What I can add is that keep, NOT delete, is my second preference. gidonb (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.