Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ultra groups


 * 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. Courcelles 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

List of ultra groups

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List of mainly not notable groups. Most of these are only referenced by WP:PRIMARY sources. Gnevin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No objective way to measure the ultraness of fan support for their team, so does not really belong in an encyclopedia. It would be possible to have articles on Fandom, Football fan, and fan support could be mentioned in individual team articles. (Fan (person) seems to be the best match.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Most or possibly all of these wouldn't pass WP:ORG, so a list isn't appropriate. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's impossible to objectively define this list. That said, it is worth noting that several of these groups have articles, not all of which are included in/linked from this article. —WFC— 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - an Ultras category will suffice. GiantSnowman 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a problem if some groups are not individually notable, that's what lists are for. (In particular, WP:ORG and WP:GNG apply to standalone articles, not to list entries, so arguments along these lines are invalid.) Not being able to find secondary sources for a particular group is grounds for removal of that group from the list and not the entire list, along with clearly notable and reliably sourced groups. Also, if the list is "impossible to objectively define", how come we have Category:Ultras groups and why would it - being purely subjective, as it were - "suffice"? GregorB (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, we avoid lists consisting entirely of non-notable/unencyclopedic material, especially in cases where such a list is an attempt to avoid scrutiny or otherwise introduce material which clearly wouldn't fly as an article. Sometimes we use the term "redlink farm" for these.  So if Aunt Mabel's garage sale is an obviously inappropriate page, one cannot magically make it okay by shifting it to List of garage and yard sales in East Podunk County instead. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but it is very hard to argue that this list is "an attempt to avoid scrutiny or otherwise introduce material which clearly wouldn't fly as an article" when we already have Category:Ultras groups. Therefore, the garage sale analogy doesn't quite apply here. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking a glance at a handful of random articles from that category, I see nothing that would pass an AFD as written, and at least 2 that could probably be speedied right now. The existence of these articles isn't evidence that the community has given them some sort of stamp of approval, but merely that (until now) they've flown under the radar and not been deleted because nobody noticed them. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No contest there, but the real question is whether the concept of "list of ultras groups" - be it a category or an article - makes sense, and not whether individual entries pass the grade as standalone articles (except, of course, if none of them do). GregorB (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 January 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.