Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naples United FC


 * 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. Consensus is this fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources, and WP:FOOTYN because the team hasn't played their first match yet. No reason it can't be re-created (or this version restored) if/when these problems are resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Naples United FC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unpromising google search. Article is about small soccer team that hasn't played yet, TOOSOON, CRSYTAL, WP:FOOTYN L3X1 (distant write)  00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Nom Withdrawn unless it would be considered disruptive, I would like to postpone this deletion until May 25th 2017, after their scheduled debut game. I think NAC would allow the Nom to close this as Probational Keep, withdrawn, so I can close this tomorrow unless this is objectionable. L3X1 (distant write)  15:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that there are !votes to delete the article, withdrawal of the nomination is not an option unless all such !votes are also withdrawn. If every !vote were to keep the article, you could withdraw your nomination and close it yourself, but this is not the case. If you were to attempt an NAC close, it would quickly be reverted. I would recommend allowing the AFD to run its course and have an admin make the final decision. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 12:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let it run its course. Thanks for explaining. L3X1 (distant write)  14:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging some people from the football projects because of their experience, not SHOPPING nor Meat puppetry. I don't know how they will vote, or what they will say. I may have experience with them before, but I have not attempted to influence their vote in anyway.        L3X1  (distant write)  00:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep given that the team is scheduled to begin play in only a little over a month, I don't think a TOOSOON/CRYSTALBALL deletion is a good idea. Furthermore, almost every team in that league has an article, and I don't think this should be an exception. Lepricavark (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the club hasn't played a match, it falls short of WP:FOOTYN and the expectation of it playing, even in the near future, is WP:CRYSTAL. There seems to be surprisingly little coverage for a new franchise which would mean it does not pass WP:GNG either. Can be restored by an admin as soon as they play. Kosack (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - cannot see from Google that this team even exists. GiantSnowman 08:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Club has not yet played a single match (WP:CRYSTAL), though it is listed on the NPSL website as a current club. Strangely, I find no other mention of the club on Google or Yahoo searches, so WP:GNG is clearly failed. Regarding WP:FOOTYN, there are three prior AFDs (Grand Rapids FC, AFC Ann Arbor, and Oakland United FC) that pointed out a particular ambiguity within the club notability section: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. This does not address teams which are eligible to play in the national cup but have not yet done so; overall consensus seems to have developed (see the three prior AFDs) that mere eligibility confers notability, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. To reiterate, I !vote to delete because WP:GNG is failed, and the club has not played a single match so WP:CRYSTAL applies and WP:FOOTYN does not. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is probably because of larger team S.S.C. Napoli who play in Italy, the english name for this city is Naples.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep CRYSTAL doesn't apply, the team's about to begin their season. Just about every team in the league they're currently in has entered into the U.S. Open Cup, so unless it's clear this team won't also be held to that standard, it meets FOOTYN. This is a case for expansion, not deletion. If the article can't be expanded and improved within a few months, then come back and delete it. I would support deletion then 1000%. There's no rush. South Nashua (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator suports this reasoning as superior to deletion If the article can't be expanded and improved within a few months, then come back and delete it. I would support deletion then 1000%. There's no rush. L3X1 (distant write)  19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep No point deleting if they will soon pass WP:NFOOTY. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would really like to vote "Keep" but since there is so little citation on this very article (4 or 5 different searches on both google and bing yealded 3 sources, one being the teams Facebook page and the other two being promotional) I cannot. Ether way it seems like WP:TOOSOON, I think L3X1 immediate comment above is the best way to go. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete As per the previous comment, I'd be inclined to want to keep the article on the basis that most clubs at their level have been deemed notable, but the complete lack of reliable sources is a real problem for me. You would think a new franchise would generate some press coverage, but apparently not in this case. The fact they haven't played yet isn't the issue, it's the fact that they fail WP:GNG based on lack of significant coverage. Jellyman (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (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.