Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Ultras 98


 * 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. I'm sorry Sopot26 but there are no reliable sources that show that this subject is notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fire Ultras 98

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about some fan club of a soccer club with zero coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Boffob (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - "This group is responsible for the original visual style of Fire fans: wearing of scarves, displaying large banners, and waving flags." That's great, so how does that make this group notable?  Most fan groups carry large signs; heck, at a Sarnia Sting game, I witnessed someone bring an "easy button".  CycloneGU (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Great points by people that don’t know anything about the subject they are commenting on. Please at least Google the subject or click on the links and learn how significant this supporters group was and is to the growing soccer culture in American. Also currently more information is being collected to augment the short statements posted.

As for zero coverage by independent source again just Google.

Sarnia Sting please let not compare Hockey with Soccer, just look up TIFO and see the difference. This is something that FU98 has infused in Section 8 Chicago for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epQdreYwO5s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopot26 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have something to do with this article. Can you please tell us what specifically makes this group notable per Wikipedia policy?  CycloneGU (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Started to collect FU98 history and discovered how crucial this group was in facilitating the European supporters culture in a fledgling team (Chicago Fire) and the new league, MLS. Today we see fantastic TIFO displays in Seattle, Toronto, Portland, etc… but the humble beginnings stated in section 9, in the old soldier field with FU98.

Looking thru the recent Sports Illustrated articles about the growing supporter’s culture in North America, FU98 stands out as the Godfathers in establishing Section 8 Chicago and yes infusing the group with scarves, large banners, and flags, which was different to the typical American sports experience.

I see you are a sports fan, so I encourage you to partake in the beautiful game and see first hand the influence of FU98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopot26 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Has the fan club been covered by reliable sources? I still don't get how this makes them notable, Canadian fans are always waving flags at international hockey matches.  This type of thing could be said of any sport, not just soccer.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly just look up Section 8 Chicago and see the displays. Also look up TIFO and see the difference in size, quantity, quality and intricacy of displays in soccer verses other sports. Don’t get me wrong I love Hockey but Hockey does not have the same organized supporter’s culture as soccer.

So what is notable? The groups influence in changing an American soccer culture.

As for coverage by reliable sources, please just pick up the local Chicago papers, look thru the local web media or turn the game on and we will be mentioned.

Also browse thru other supporters clubs of other MLS teams for references on how FU98 and Section 8 Chicago inspired them.

As for waiving flags, I don’t think you seen one than measured 80yd x 25yd at a game :-)

Other examples:

http://www.section8chicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=305

And as I mentioned I am collecting some great historical stuff on these guys, if you feel that FU98 contribution should not be documented on Wiki, I am not gone fight you.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopot26 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help me understand Chicago Tribune and Fifa don’t count as independent third-party sources?Sopot26 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence, currently, of coverage by independent reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a small group of fans sit near each other, give themselves a name, and encourage others to wave flags? Yeah, not even nearly notable, sorry. GiantSnowman 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Just added 11 references (coverage by independent sources) and still cleaning up more historical materials I will post. Sopot26 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat, there is no notability. Has the New York Times written an article about the group?  The Washington Post?  The LA Times?  Another independent third-party source?  If not, I can't see an argument for a keep here.  If anything, userfy it and try to work on it, but in good faith I really don't see how you'll be able to assert notability.  Further, blogs are not sources.  They must be removed.  CycloneGU (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw Chicago Tribune, I didn't argue that one. But I also note that this is a group based in Chicago; you'd expect Tribune coverage much like the London Free Press would cover a local group of soccer fans in London, Ontario, an example I use because I live not too far from London.  So I'm not sure it counts as significant coverage.  FIFA does qualify as independent as well, so a review of the article would be needed.  CycloneGU (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Analysis of references - I thought an analysis of the references just reported as added to the article might help discussion.
 * 1 is the soccer club's site.
 * 2 and 3 are the organization's own Web site.
 * 4 is a discussion forum.
 * 5 is a blog, as are 8 (in my opinion, though well-written) and 9.
 * I can't analyze 10 in Polish (though it does have a Youtube video embedded in it)
 * 11 is the same blog as 9.
 * Therefore, the only good references are 6 and 7, the Chicago Tribune and FIFA in that order. Since the group is local to Chicago, I rule out the Tribune.  FIFA might be the only reliable third-party reference.  And the question becomes whether this is enough notability to warrant an article.  If the article is kept, then 1-3 can be used in places as well, but 6 and 7 are the only ones that can determine article notability.  Refs 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11 should be removed immediately.  CycloneGU (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to humbly point out that if we would follow this logic, we would need to delete most of supporters’ group pages in Category: Association football supporters' associations and Category: Ultras groups. For example Kohorta Osijek, the only reference is to their own webpage. Sopot26 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD has nothing to do with those pages. If you want to nominate them for deletion, go for it and they will be analyzed based on their own merits.  CycloneGU (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No I will not be nominating any pages for deletion, I see Wiki as inclusive not exclusive. I was just pointing out my perception of uneven analysis of merits, between same subject articles. Sopot26 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Each page is analyzed on its own merits and notability. There is no comparison between articles in any form.  Just because another soccer fan club is notable does not automatically make this one notable, and the opposite also holds true.  CycloneGU (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood, it is just hard to see an Original 21 article (another supporters club) for example, with similar description and only one link to “Original 21” webpage accepted in Wiki and my article (in development) being scrutinized. Sopot26 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it was never nominated for deletion in 2007. It has no actual references at all.  I wonder if it should be.  But even so, it still has no bearing on this deletion.  Because of the FIFA source, I am reconsidering my opinion, but not sure if it's enough.  CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some digging and found this, which might be a good model for trying to build your article around. I might find some others too that might serve as good examples for this type of article.  I'm seriously debating whether Original 21 has enough info to stand, though, without some work.  CycloneGU (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you this will help me organize the materials I collected. I was looking for good example that's how I found the other ones. Thank you again. Sopot26 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (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.