Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Patch Boys


 * 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. Petros471 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Patch Boys
Totally non-notable unofficial fan-based organisation. Speedy tags and prod were removed by not-the-creator. AFD'ing so the tags can't be removed. Please speedy delete this so it won't get re-created for the fourth time. zzuuzz (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 226 forum users not noteable enough. Delete per nom. User:Yy-bo 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Other football supporter groups, including another from Toronto have had no issues with posting club information on wikipedia.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.106.62 (talk • contribs).
 * Give examples, please. wikipediatrix 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an example, U-Sector. 129.100.60.173 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that we are talking about a supporters group for a completely new soccer franchise that is still about 8 months away from their first home game here. I would argue that 226 forum users is notable in this particular context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.100.60.173 (talk • contribs).
 * Speedy delete, CSD A7, db-club. And padlock it against re-creation this time. wikipediatrix 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable fan site. IrishGuy talk 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability for this club has been proven.--Isotope23 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, small fan group, also advertising ("canvasing locally to increase our own numbers"). Punkmorten 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As per above request for deletion - no advertising done - Statement made as to activities of the group - canvasing locally would describe a physical activity in the physical area of the group not wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.99.95 (talk • contribs).
 * This is notable as a direct reference to the Toronto Football Club which is also an accepted enty in wiki. If a franchise that has not played its first game is notable then a fan group with numbers in the 100's before a player is even drafted is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.99.95 (talk • contribs) . (again)
 * I find it hard to understand why one Toronto FC supporters group is allowed to keep its page, but not the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.11.68 (talk • contribs).
 * What are you talking about? Punkmorten 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The U-Sector's wiki page was deleted (without warning), while the Red Patch Boys' page still stands. Note that U-Sector has existed since 2000 and has an independent reference on the Toronto FC page verifying its existence, while the Red Patch Boys currently exist as a web entity only, and only since May 11th of this year.
 * I do not understand, when there are two reasonably large organized/organizing fan clubs (for a team that will not play for another 8 months), that they should not have their entries. Supporters clubs for established teams with unknown membership (e.g. Empire Supporters Club) have their own pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldtimer7 (talk • contribs).
 * It should be noted at the owners of the team, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment have been keeping up communication with the two supporter's groups. If one of the largest sports corporations in Canada wants to keep in contact with them, they deserve to have a brief mention in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldtimer7 (talk • contribs) . (again)
 * Strong Keep, I can do a little editing for these guys so they can keep their entry. It's a legit fan fan group for a legit soccer/football club. I see no reason to delete. Minfo 04:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is not one independent reference  to support even the existence of this Union, nevermind the details in the article. It would be an ideal place to start. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Paul Beirne, the GM of TFC posts there so its not exactly 'unknown' Soccer fan 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, TFC is in active communication with this group, and, as stated, a support group in the hundreds is definitely large enough for a team that has yet to play --Trump 18:46, 13 September 2006 (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.