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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperfiel[edit]

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

This was a planned stadium for a NN football club that was never built. There is some coverage on local media on the scam, however I'm not sure this passes the notability threshhold as a crime. Possibly someone that speaks better Portuguese can investigate if this has had significant local impact. Passportguy (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for delete the article. The same was properly edited with relevant informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.26.189.67 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sport Club Corinthians Paulista#Stadiums. Cooperfiel was a NGO created to gather funds and built a new stadium. They were able to collect only about US$10,000 and decided to close down. The money was donnated to Corinthians. The source is [1]. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case was a huge mass ilusion. Since the first time the people who was at administration of the association named "Cooperfiel" was linked with the bad portion of the Sport Club Corinthians. The unique purpose was to change the public view for corruption. In the end of the association, money was losed (they said "was donate to the SC Corinthians", but there wasn't any proof). The Stadium never was the aim, only a dream to sell. Sorry about english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusvcn (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:53, 12 June 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.