Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andenne Bears

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 merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. Nakon 01:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andenne Bears

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local football team in a Belgian town of 25,000 persons. Finding no sources to indicate that this club satisfies WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with a redirect to the parent article on the league. Cbl62 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it's a bit tricky and a bit marginal. Little comes up when you WP:GOOGLETEST under "Andenne Bears" but you need to search in French, where they are known as "Les Bears d'Andenne" (note: NOT "les Ours d'Andenne", the literal French translation). They get some coverage that meets WP:SECONDARY from Namur provincial TV (see [1]) - a respectable secondary source, but only just - and a lot of coverage from L'Avenir, a regional but longstanding Belgian daily paper (see, for instance,[2]). Some stuff may come up in Flemish/Dutch too but I'm not so good at that. Any Flemish speakers like to weigh in? Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Boleyn and the fact that I am not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources. Tavix | Talk 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Non-notable amateur American football team based in a small town in Belgium. Routine coverage of this team does exist, with local small town coverage in the team's home region, but it is in the nature of routine game coverage that one might expect to see for high school teams in their hometown newspapers in the United States. The coverage is not sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- especially outside the town's home region. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Please noted that my !vote has been changed to "merge and redirect" immediately below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of this team and the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content in this article that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever decision is reached here shouldn't be for just one team in the league. The same concerns apply to each of the Brussels Tigers, Grez-Doiceau Fighting Turtles, Liège Monarchs, Waterloo Warriors, Charleroi Coal Miners, Tournai Phoenix, and Luxembourg Steelers. Also, L'Avenir isn't a local paper, it covers substantially the whole of Francophone Belgium. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant to whether this team meet the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines; however, I've looked over the other pages and taken them to AfD individually. Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Given that foreign language coverage does exist (although precious little in English), how would you feel about a merge and redirect compromise for all of the teams in this league. That would allow us to preserve a 50 to 100-word paragraph of content for each team on the league page, with each of the current team articles redirecting there. How's that for reasonable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote on this, one way or the other, but my gut feeling on this is that we really need some French speakers to chime in here in order to be able to evaluate this properly. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: In so far as any amateur sport teams really merit articles, most of these AfDs could be rejected with a cursory search of google as part of due diligence. see 1, 2 etc. American football is hardly big nationally, but the fact that these teams are listed (with full profiles) on L'Avenir (a respected regional newspaper) is easily enough to qualify as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Ditto, the town's official website and La Meuse (another regional newspaper)... —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: You apparently have a very different concept of what qualifies as "significant coverage" per the general notability guidelines; of the two links you cite above, one is a club listing on a city website, and the other is a brief article about the amateur football league in a local newspaper, which mentions the subject team. Neither of these qualifies as "significant coverage." If we used your understanding of "significant coverage" as the standard for determining the notability of amateur sports clubs, virtually every high school football team in the United States would be notable per GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1:, most of them do... The interpretation of notability guidelines is always more flexible for American articles than for others in my experience. I raise you Brooklyn Celtic as just one example of this. Anyway, instead of scoring points, however, why don't we attempt to seek a compromise - perhaps the entire series noted above could be merged into a single article, say Life of American Football teams of Belgium or American Football in Belgium? Would that not be more constructive? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: You misunderstand my motives. I have no interest in "scoring points," but I am stating the obvious about the perceived meaning of "significant coverage." I am a regular participant in sports-related AfDs, and the notability guidelines are routinely misapplied on this basis. The teams in this league are marginally notable at best, and non-notable at worst; it's a close call, either way. That's why I have changed my !vote from "delete" to "merge and redirect"; the logical merge target is the parent league article, Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique, where virtually all of the content of this article is already duplicated. A brief paragraph for each team could be added there, and the team articles redirected there. That's my alternative proposal to outright deletion; I think it's a pretty good one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I say, I really doubt that these articles are of practical use anyway, so I think your solution seems quite fair. I have modified my vote. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I change my suggestion from delete to merge and redirect, Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.