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. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grup 14[edit]

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

Non-notable fan club. Unable to find third party sourcing and none provided in article. Article had been A7'd and quickly re-created. Afterwards, another editor nominated the article for speedy but a mysterious IP removed the tag. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are listed, only the subject's own website. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Also seems vaguely promotional, in that its primary purpose seems to be to link to their forum. ~ Rob^Talk 23:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of meeting any of the notability criteria. Not going to launch an SPI but theres a quacking sound coming from somewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 09:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC
Keep The website suggests of notability, having articles by many of the most well-known authors in Spain, like Ángel Iturriaga Barco (see here: http://grup14.com/member/angel-iturriaga) and collaborations with famous writers like Xavi Torres (see: http://grup14.com/member/xavi-torres). ~ Arvin^Talk 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)— ArvinKH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ As some of the editors above are lying about, there's no link to the forum. ~ Arvin^Talk 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)— ArvinKH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please do not include a "vote" twice (and I use that term loosely, as deletion discussions are not a vote). You're free to comment/respond as many times as you like, of course, but you can do so without stating Keep or Delete after your first. There was a link to the forum when I made my comment earlier, which you have now removed. The page still shows no signs of meeting notability guidelines, which would require significant coverage in independent sources. ~ Rob^Talk 10:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArvinKH, do not remove other editors' comments or SPA indicators.--Rpclod (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor apologized and notified me of this on my talk page prior to Rpclod reverting his edits or being warned in any way, so he seems to be acting in good faith. He should still take Rpclod's comments to heart, though, and stop removing content of any sort from deletion discussions or AfD templates from articles. ~ Rob^Talk 11:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the second vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never deleted anything and I never will. This was just an accident. ArvinKH (talk)
ArvinKH, despite your statements to the contrary, you obviously attempted to blank the page under an IP address after re-editing the comments made under your Wikipedia user name. This suggests an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior and could be a basis for blocking your edit capability. Please maintain productive editing.--Rpclod (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rpclod, I find it unacceptable on how you accuse me of wrongdoing, I have not been doing this, and I don't understand why you think I have. I'm just starting Wikipedia, and I got to say, this has yet not been a fun experience, but I hope things won't be the same in the long-run. After consideration I think this page should be removed, as the author, and as the only person that wants (or, wanted) this page to be stay, I allow you to remove it. Grup 14 is still new, and maybe when some third party sources start writing about it again, I'll reclaim the page. But right now, I have taken your sayings in consideration and I think we should remove it. And please, don't accuse me of things I haven't done, I find that very disrespectful.

Best Regards! -- ArvinKH — Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not what I was seeking, I assume that the article can now be speedy deleted pursuant to WP:G7.--Rpclod (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rpclod], please mention my name if you're speaking to me :-)

Yes, please delete it. I will re-create it when enough third party sources mention Grup 14. And by the way, this won't be the last time you will see me, as I will continue editing and writing.Hope you have nice day, and please, next time, don't accuse me of things without evidence. -- ArvinKH — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArvinKH (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template added for speedy deletion. ~ Rob^Talk 16:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArvinKH: I'm glad to see that you still want to write/edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia definitely needs more enthusiastic newcomers. I hope this deletion discussion doesn't put you off editing. And if you weren't the disruptive IP user, then apologies for the mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, could we Userfy this article instead of deleting it? They might become notable in the future. Joseph2302(talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC

@Joseph2302: Good idea, I think we can do that. But if the other guys don't agree with it, I still wouldn't mind the article being deleted.ArvinKH

@Rpclod and BU Rob13: What do you think about userfying it? Also, I've removed the G7, since the above suggests the author would much rather have it userfied than deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they care enough to respond. I have decided to speedy delete it instead, as I want it removed and Userfying would take too much time. But a question, if you speedy delete it, would I be able to create it again later on, when there are more sources? ArvinKH (talk)

Yes, as long as there is significant evidence of notability from reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Caring is my middle name. Userfication is an acceptable option and that would make preserving content easier. When you do find reliable sources that demonstrate notability, add them in context and move the article back.--Rpclod (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to userfying this or moving it to the draft space. I heavily recommend that this article go through the Articles for Creation process if ArvinKH eventually decides to move this back to the mainspace, as this will ensure the article meets policy and won't quickly become the subject of a deletion discussion again. ~ Rob^Talk 00:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a fan group of FC Barcelona, I was expecting to find lots of reliable sources about them, but I cannot find any. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what's more reliable than the website itself? ArvinKH (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArvinKH: Most secondary sources about them would be better than their own website. Their own website might say they're important, but anyone can say that about themselves. Wikipedia requires evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources (newspaper/magazine articles/books about them). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: There are many websites don't have things like this covered, like one of the biggest football websites ESPN FC. Find me an article from a third party source talking about them. ArvinKH (talk)

ArvinKH, if I got the facts wrong, I apologize. I do hope that you continue editing and writing and sincerely I wish you good success.--Rpclod (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question @ArvinKH: Are you the same person as the Manager Arvin listed on [1]? If so, you have a conflict of interest and are advised to read Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Sorry for the late respond. Arvin is not my real name, my real name is Arvid, the username is a combination of my first name and my surname. and I made it to one name. KH I use everywhere, it's the tag I use when I play Playstation (even if that sounds silly, it's the truth). I prefer to stay anonymous on the internet so I have used that name. But I don't think there's any problem with my real identity in Wikipedia. ArvinKH (talk)

Okay, that's fine then, so you're just a fan then? If you want, you can remove your real name, to protect your identity. Also, your name doesn't sound particularly silly, Joseph2302 has become my generic Internet/forum name, so it's just the same as that. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just removed it. Yeah, I enjoy their articles and I read them a lot. I wrote a guest article once, but I'm not sure if that counts as conflict of interest. ArvinKH (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wholly promotional article. No indication that this forum has received any form of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Comments about notability being justified because of who some of the sites authors are is not a relevant discussion point as notability is not inherited. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:34, 30 June 2015 (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.