Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of RC Strasbourg


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Supporters of RC Strasbourg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very badly translated this is essentially nonsense in some places, and much of the content is just about the team Jac 16888  Talk 22:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - no basis for deletion provided in nomination. Based on references in article, appears to meet WP:GNG. The complaints about the article in the nomination could be addressed with editing. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT? As it stands this article is a massive pile of nonsense and speaking as a WP:PNT volunteer, no translator is likely to want to take it on. Starting from fresh translating would be much easier. Although there is a lot listed, a read through will show that the large majority of references are to rcstrasbourgalsace.fr, i.e. the team website, or fan pages-- Jac 16888 Talk 01:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is an essay. WP:GNG trumps WP:TNT. Also, WP:TNT doesn't require deletion. Bold editing would suffice. Nfitz (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to give it a try, I suspect you would retain little of the original content. Also upon further review of the references I am not convinced that GNG is met anyway, many seem to be primary sources or as Shawn says, about the club not the fans.-- Jac 16888 Talk 01:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some are primary, and some appear to be about the club, with only a brief mention of the fans. Though I just grabbed one to read more thoroughly, and it seems fine . Besides, given what else exists at this level of play, do we really think that such a historic club wouldn't have their supporters achieve notability? Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "No basis for deletion?" That's absurd. The editor Nfitz states on his user page that he has an elementary command of French, if so, surely he's capable of seeing that these references are about the club, not its fans. This is a blatant case of both TNT and WP:REDUNDANTFORK, to name but two. Delete. Absolute garbage.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nfitz states he has an elementary command, that doesn't mean he could difference if the article is about the club or its supporters. I assure you, all sources are about supporters, not only the supporters, but the sources are reliable. "absolute gargabe" you should probably read the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude. I see no basis for deletion in the nomination statement. They aren't arguments to delete ... they are arguments to edit; so go ahead and edit. Some of the references may be unnecessary; but I've checked some, and they do talk about the fans - there's more than enough to establish WP:GNG has been met - and really nothing else matters. Furthermore, I disagree about WP:REDUNDANTFORK - there's only a little overlap with the main article. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, at the very least I've added it to Category:Association football supporters, where other such pages do exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:TNT. Whether or not there should be an article on the subject, it will need be rewritten entirely, which means one way or the other the content that's currently needs to go. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as non-notable content fork. Anything that can be reliable sourced can be mentioned on the main article. GiantSnowman 08:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * please, France 3, France football, 20minutes.fr, TF1, are professionnal medias. If these sources can't be reliable, not a media could be in france. The debate is not about the sources, but should we keep and improve the article or delete it


 * Delete - Unnecessary content fork. JMHamo (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - instead of deleting it, edit it, and try to make it understandable. This article needs better translation, but the topic is interesting. Furthermore, sources are not only the official club website, but lots of French médias such as "France 3" - "France football" and "TF1". They do speak about the supporters, and how they are different than in other cities.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)  — Xaviyeah (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Any useful material can be documented in the club article. Not sure how the supporters are notable separately. Number   5  7  09:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "not sure how the supporters are notable separately" acually, this article does not mention current football players' opinion, but several International well known players and staff talk about this club, such as Kevin Gameiro in Spain, Morgan Schneiderlin, Arsene Wenger in England. This is not because you do not understand French that there is not "any useful material can be documented". Moreover, all sources are either independant or official communication. There must have 8 notable club supporters, no more, and Strasbourg is one of them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't have any independent notability Spiderone  10:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/Possibly Merge - While this article is badly written and organized I'd like to remind some of the "delete" voters that Deletion is not cleanup. Still I am not so convinced that the article is notable, however I think it is very well sourced and the information contained in it could possible stand in a stand alone article or probably better be merged with the main club article. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 04:13, 15 February 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.