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 speedy keep. No opposition, and no indication that there will be any. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football chant[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets WP:NOTE and it does not seem to assert the importance or significance of the topic that it is written about. The content of the article is also questionable. Olowe2011 ^Talk 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would be inclined to remove the nomination if the article was re written. Olowe2011 ^Talk 18:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep AFD is not for cleanup 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable, because of the massive amount of coverage soccer (or football, if you're British) gets in the world. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion - Notable subject all backed up by reliable sources, Meets NOTE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And because Football gets a lot of coverage and is clearly notable does that mean any and all related topics are notable? The question should be is football chant as an article significant and notable or would it be better placed as a section within the football article itself? Olowe2011 ^Talk 22:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Results from the "Find sources" links at the top of the page, including "books" and "scholar" results, make it abundantly clear that the topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as per WP:GNG.
Having said that, the article itself is an example of a systemic problem with popular culture topics: people want to turn them into lists, either highlighting their personal interests or adding whatever's just gone viral on social media. It'd be lovely if someone with the time and ability turned it into an outline of the history of the football chant and its function in society, with reference to sources both popular and intellectual and illustrative examples, hived off the worst of the listy stuff to a List of... article, and applied full protection for ever, but I'm guessing it won't happen anytime soon. As someone said above, AfD isn't cleanup. The topic is notable. Keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, meets GNG. Giant Snowman 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets GNG from the sources in the article and a simple search. Format of article is undesirable and needs reworking, but the subject is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2016 (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.