Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neftchi Baku PFK in European football


 * 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. L Faraone  02:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Neftchi Baku PFK in European football

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be an unnecessary fork for a team that has essentially had no real success at continental level. No indication that there is any significant third party coverage of this subject outside of the usual match reports and stat sites. Club article already contains a summary f this information. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually, this club been in Europa League, which counts as success. Furthermore, where we should locate statistical information? There should be a page for it and deleting it will not make it better. Neftchi deserves same articles as per Rosenborg BK in European football or any club that been in European cup stages --NovaSkola (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP Is this a joke? Neftchi Baku PFK in European football is a former featured list candidate (Date: September 18, 2012 & January 30, 2013). Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. Repeatedly KEEP! --► Safir yüzüklü  Cekli  mesaj 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - this article being nominate as a FL is irrelevant, especially as it was "not promoted" on both occasions. This article is a mass of stats and has no real content; the subject fails WP:GNG and there is no justification for a seperate article. It should be merged into the parent article. GiantSnowman 08:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate a bit here, and hopefully not getting too waxy, the Rosenborg article referred to above is also pretty much a mass of stats with a short two-paragraph lead, yet that was promoted at FLC. I understand the Baku article failed at FLC due mainly to poor-quality writing and layout, but if those issues were fixed would it really be any different to the Rosenborg equivalent.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fenix down and Giant, what are these?
 * Coventry City F.C. in European football
 * Derby County F.C. in European football
 * Portsmouth F.C. in European football
 * Watford F.C. in European football
 * ACF Gloria 1922 Bistriţa in European football
 * AFC Progresul București in European football
 * ASA Târgu Mureș in European football
 * FCM Bacău in European football
 * CF Braila in European football
 * CFR Cluj in European football
 * CS Flacăra Moreni in European football
 * CS Gaz Metan Mediaș in European football
 * FC Argeș Pitești in European football
 * FC Baia Mare in European football
 * FC Brașov in European football
 * FC Caracal in European football
 * FC Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț in European football
 * FC Corvinul Hunedoara in European football
 * FC Dinamo București in European football
 * FC Farul Constanţa in European football
 * FC Politehnica Timișoara in European football
 * FC Rapid București in European football
 * FC Sportul Studențesc București in European football
 * FC Unirea Urziceni in European football
 * FC Universitatea Cluj in European football
 * FC Universitatea Craiova in European football
 * FC UTA Arad in European football
 * FCM Dunărea Galaţi in European football
 * FC Oțelul Galați in European football
 * FC Petrolul Ploiești in European football
 * Victoria Bucureşti in European football
 * AEK Larnaca F.C. in European football
 * PSV Eindhoven in European football
 * FK Vardar in European football
 * Hibernians F.C. in European football
 * GNK Dinamo Zagreb in European football
 * HNK Hajduk Split in European football
 * KF Tirana in European football
 * PFC Litex Lovech in European football
 * PFC CSKA Sofia in European football
 * PFC Levski Sofia in European football
 * PFC Lokomotiv Sofia in European football
 * FC Viktoria Plzeň in European football
 * FK Teplice in European football
 * SC Bastia in European football
 * FC Schalke 04 in European football
 * AEK Athens F.C. in European football
 * Újpest FC in European football
 * Shelbourne F.C. in European football
 * Hapoel Tel Aviv F.C. in European football
 * Maccabi Haifa F.C. in European football
 * Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C. in European football
 * FC Amkar Perm in European football
 * FC Chernomorets Novorossiysk in European football
 * FC Dynamo Moscow in European football
 * FC Lokomotiv Moscow in European football
 * PFC CSKA Moscow in European football
 * FC Torpedo Moscow in European football
 * FC Zenit Saint Petersburg in European football
 * St. Mirren F.C. in European football
 * St. Johnstone F.C. in European football
 * Partick Thistle F.C. in European football
 * Hibernian F.C. in European football
 * ŠK Slovan Bratislava in European football
 * NK Maribor in European football
 * IF Elfsborg in European football
 * Cardiff City F.C. in European football
 * Bangor City F.C. in European football
 * and etc... What are these? ► Safir yüzüklü  Cekli  mesaj 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep.Taking into consideration the samples of the above-mentioned articles, I find it extremely unfair that the article titled Neftchi Baku PFK in European football has been deleted. Urek ( talk ) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been deleted.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * and I'll repeat - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to the sources → Sure, It is notable--SaməkTalk 14:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't buy the argument that there's "no real content". There are plenty of similar articles you could say that about, but to me this isn't one of them. While the tables go further down the route of displaying minutiae than I would like, there is more of substance than could comfortably fit into the parent article without it becoming undue weight. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (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.