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 keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSM Slatina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Declined Prod by author. Prod reason was "Per WP:FOOTYN non notable team in sub-national league. Unreferenced article." Prod Decline did not come with an improvement to the article. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A team in the second division of Romanian football is notable, but their future is uncertain because funding has been withdrawn by the local council. It appears as though nobody thought they could reach that level in two years. A merger with another club or extinction seem most likely. There is a lot of coverage about that and their previous exploits in the Romanian media. Adevărul [1], Pro Sport [2], Gazeta de Sud [3], Gazeta Noua [4]. Confirmation of their Liga III title at Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. [5] Passes WP:GNG. Needs expanding, not deleting. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Argyle 4 Life, good research to demonstrate notability. GiantSnowman 11:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with respect to Argyle 4 Life and GiantSnowman, you seem to be missing the point. This article does not meet the specific notability guideline (the team is in a regional 2nd or 3rd tier and not eligible for the national cup as per WP:FOOTYN) and then dropping back to WP:GNG we don't have enough content in the english article to make a reasonable claim of notability. Furthermore, an article does not exist on the Romanian wikipedia, so it's reasonable to assume that if they're not notable enough in their home region, they're not notable enough here. Hasteur (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hardly think that's a fair assumption; there are far more editors and contributors for the English language encyclopedia, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that not every local topic of notability might be covered in a local language. matt91486 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Cupa României suggests that the team would in fact be eligible to compete for it. So, unless you have evidence to the contrary (in which case, please update the Romanian Cup article, as I don't know any more about it than what we've got up), that claim against their eligibility would not be accurate. matt91486 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It did surprise me that there is no record of them playing in the Romanian Cup since their formation but then I'm not familar with the format. As a Liga III team last season they should have entered at some point. Eitherway, a team competing at a high level in Romanian football is certainly notable. WP:NONENG states that English-language sources are preferred. Nowhere does it say that foreign language sources are unacceptable. I can think of many Asian players kept at AfD on the basis that they've got references to sources in their own language. I'm not sure why the nominator has been proding clearly notable players, such as Renny Vega and Jesús Meza but that's another matter. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Argyle4Life's sourcing, league tier membership. matt91486 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2011 (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.