Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSANF

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSANF

This page is for a federation of football 'national' teams. However, as yet no team has joined the federation. The page lists only 'potential' members. I would suggest that unless some teams join the federation, this article lacks notability.

I am also nominating this page

a sister federation that also has no members. Furthermore, according to the creator of the CSANF page (who I assume would have knowledge of such things) the CENF has been disbanded. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per gsearches; plentiful hits show both have attracted adequate attention. JJL (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe question is surely not whether or not these associations have been discussed, but whether a group that has no members can be deemed notable? Stu.W UK (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, it can if it attracts attention. Here's a good article on CENF, for example, from The Sunday Herald: [1]. JJL (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you tell me what other articles your search turned up, because I can't find any that aren't from wikipedia redirects or from the organisation themselves. The article does mention the CENF but was written when the organisation had just been set up at a time when it was reasonable to have no members. Stu.W UK (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - an group with no members? Not notable yet. Giant Snowman 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - members or not, seems to be notable as per references provided by JJL. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carli as a redirect to Confederation of European New Federations which is bundled with this nomination. If this article deleted, David Carli will need to be deleted under CSD G8. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - completely non-notable organisations at this point. - fchd (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with members or not they are notable, see JJL reference Calapez (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article that mentions the organisation in passing does not constitute the multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:N - fchd (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see nothing that suggests that this is anything more than a few people drawing up a list of rules and then inviting people to sign up to those rules. And thus far, no-one has done so, because the bodies they invite are inactive. Blogs and forums do not constitute RS, and I see no external references that suggest that this committee has ever done anything other than post material to a non-notable website. Kevin McE (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. No evidence that anyone other than the founders has noticed these "federations" apart from one silly season press article. Part of the fantasy football walled garden around NF-Board. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (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.