Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hooligan firms


 * 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. I wouldn't be sorry to see this article disappear, as it has wasted enough of my time recently (I have it watchlisted, and have reverted vandalism, deleted multiple attempts to insert unsourced material, and blocked a multitude of sockpuppets). Nevertheless, it is sourced - though many of those sources need fixing or removing - clearly meets WP:LIST and is equally clearly not an indiscriminate list. So it looks like I'll be fixing it for a while longer :) Black Kite 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:NOT#LIST -- that page is simply a list. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The reason it is a list is because that is what was agreed in a previous discussion when it was an article about hooligan firms. The content about the firms was moved to the article Football hooliganism and to keep that article manageable it was decided to make the Hooligan firms article into a list; something that appears all over wikipedia with all sorts of articles. (And yes I know that comparisons with what happens on other articles is not really relevant, however the fact remains that there are numerous football related lists. For instance, List of association football competitions, List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of football clubs in Latvia to name but three.) If of course you feel that it should be expanded from a list then that is what should happen rather than simply proposing it be deleted. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus never overrides policy. So it still must be deleted. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. What policy? As someone else has pointed out, the WP shortcut you quoted does not lead anywhere. Advise you research thoroughly before bringing another AfD. Ref (chew) (do) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a verifiable list that is set out as recommended in Lists (stand-alone lists), has a selection criteria and every entry is cited from a verifiable source. It's stated it's purpose in the lead and presented the associated information underneath. What exactly is the reason for the AFD? WP:NOT isn't a valid internal link. Nanonic (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nanonic, who just wrote pretty much what I was going to. Struway2 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but expand. A brief introduction as to what exactly a hooligan firm is would be welcome, but otherwise it's a well referenced list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Could use some improvement, as TRM suggests, but it's a valid topic for a list. As WP:NOT doesn't seem to exist, no reason has actually been offered for deletion. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't particularly like the subject matter, but there's no reason to delete under present Wikipedia policies. List are allowed. Ref (chew) (do) 13:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as no actual reason for deletion exists (neither on WP:NOT#LIST [...] nor anywhere else). – Elisson • T • C • 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to answer about expanding it, the reason it is just a list is because there was a huge discussion quite some time ago when it was an article Hooligan firms and not just a list. And a decision was made to move all the content discussing firms to the Football hooliganism article. I didn't agree with the decision at the time, but I accepted it. Also, the subject matter isn't the most pleasant, however I keep a constant eye on it to ensure it is always fully verified. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment no reason why the lead couldn't be expanded a little bit though, no need to copy the football hooliganism article verbatim but something more than is there right now wouldn't hurt. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThanks for replying. To be honest I was wary of expanding the lead, but once this AfD has closed, if of course the article is kept, which I see no reason why it should not be kept when the overwhelming view apart from one user who seems to with the greatest of respect, using this article to make a point because they don't like articles that are in list format, appears to be for it to be kept, then I will expand the lead. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 23:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per TRM. Although not perfectly asserted now, article has potential to assert notability, but does fine currently. Rudget . 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * REF - Comment on contribution, not contributor, first. Second, WP:NOT#LIST actually is a valid link bringing you to what wikipedia is not. Specifically, in these guidelines, it states that Wikipedia is not a list.   To Quote:

Wikipedia is not a directory

Policy shortcuts:  WP:NOT#DIR 

 WP:NOT#DIRECTORY 

WP:DIRECTORY 

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Wikipedia articles are not:A



Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)

That's the policy I'm referring to. This list quailifies as such, and as such, consensus or not, will be deleted as policy over-rides consensus.

Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Um, right now, there are many editors who have agreed that this does not fail to meet the policy you're describing. Are you suggesting this list is a list of "Loosely associated topics"?  Not exactly, it's a very well defined set of articles, very closely related indeed.  At the moment, it's surprising to me that it hasn't been snowball kept.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - and you're shouting. Cool it please. Ref (chew) (do) 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; it is true that "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Fortunately, this article is neither. --Haemo (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh indeed yes, notable alright and this separate-from-teams/matches/etc List Of (per explanation from Tangerines, above) is appropriate and is in good, if not perfect, shape re verifications. Possibly I may have a teeny POV but they wouldn't let us girls in the ICF...Plutonium27 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * snowball keep Somebody, anybody. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This has only been open for three days. It quite clearly states on the article about AfD's that, "If the discussion has been listed according to the rules above, at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it should be closed within a few more days at most." Five days not three, and not especially when valid reasons have been stated by numerous users for the article to be kept. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand, I want the Afd closed early and the article kept, as I understand is allowed under WP:SNOW MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, however, I wasn't replying to your message, but commenting, after the nominator had yet again closed this AfD trying to maintain that the result was to delete, and his attempt to close it was reverted again. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was sure he had replied earlier to my comment too but can't see it now. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no breach of Wikipedia policy here. --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete actually. This list is actually pretty hopeless.  Most of these firms are known only to each other and as passing mentions in tabloids; I don't see any evidence that this serves a purpose over and above the article on football firm.  It's just a directory of groups tat are not in themselves particularly notable, severla of which have articles based on sources which don't even name them.  The whole nest of articles could probably be pruned to one good article. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - can I point you in the direction of the article's 59 references (so far) and the 3 external links, just to back up my assertion that, far from being "known only to each other", their activities are firmly in the public domain, and (obviously) they are well known to police force crime units, not just among their own kind. The crucial thing with this list is that it is properly referenced (as Wikipedia demands) and is not an indiscriminate collection. For those reasons alone, it passes the required standards. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per what Wikipedia is, i.e. Lists. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia has many lists and as long as each entry in this list has a reliable source, I don't see a problem. I don't think this violates WP:NOT and I think it's an okay stand-alone list (although the criteria for inclusion should be specified more clearly in the lead). Lists and categories complement each other &mdash; in this case the category is Category:Football (soccer) hooligan firms. --Pixelface (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (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.