Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Kalamaria

: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. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Club Kalamaria]]=

:{{la|Club Kalamaria}} ([{{fullurl:Club Kalamaria|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Kalamaria}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Club is not notable, his web is dead, 0 ghits (in both English and Greek). Only creator is banned for creating hoaxes and possibly this is another hoax. Yopie 11:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - only claim to notability is its "celebrities" side. No independent sources supplied, and I can find none - assuming that this is not Apollon Kalamarias F.C. which already has an article. To be fair to the author, he is blocked for two weeks, not banned, and with a bit of WP:AGF it may be that what he is doing is not deliberate hoaxing but dressing up, in neatly-presented articles, things that exist but are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (though the dead-link web addresses presented in the first version of this and in the recent "micronation" of Michalia don't look good). If he would read and apply WP:V and WP:N he could be a useful editor. MetroStar - while you are blocked you can still edit your talk page: if you want to contribute to this debate, post there and I will copy it across. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I spent some time trying to find some kind of corroborating source for this material and pretty well failed at it - in my mind the article falls somewhere between "hoax" and "plainly not notable", and I don't think it matters for the immediate discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (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.